Re: [weirds] Scope and guiding principles (was Re: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt)

[Dave Piscitello <[e-mail]>]

I'm reminded of the Pirate's Code (Pirates of the Caribbean):

"There more like guidelines".

If I understand the original suggestion, we want a successor that has the features required and implemented today by registries and registrars. And we want extensibility to accommodate features that may be required in the future or are implemented by folks other than registries/registrars implement today.

The line doesn't have to be sharply defined in the guidelines.

Does anyone doubt that the parties to this list won't serve as satisfactory filters to assure that self-sharpening blades don't work their way into the drafts?

This said, I'm OK with proceeding as suggested. 


On May 4, 2012, at 4:57 AM, Peter Koch wrote:

> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:56:12PM -0700, Francisco Arias wrote:
> 
>> 1. The protocol MUST enable policy options, not dictate them. (We should
>> specify all the features that are requested, subject to principle #2
> 
> if only the boundary was that sharp. ("now that we have this nice
> specification of the Guillotine, we really should do something with the
> self sharpening blades ...")
> 
>> 2. We MUST only specify features that are already required/implemented by
>> registries/registrars. )Other features can be specified later by those
>> interested in extensions to the protocol.)
> 
> Limiting scope makes sense, but where's the threshold? At least one? The "majority"?
> Is the ICANN/gTLD world what counts?
> 
> -Peter
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds