[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Unofficial minutes June 11 1999 Names Council Meeting
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 06:36:20PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > It may very well be that as the MoU fades in the sunset the rfc1591
> > definitions will prevail. However, I think a more realistic
> > assessment is that the situation has changed radically from the days
> > when 1591 was written.
> the iana web pages and at at http://www.iana.org/tld-deleg-prac.html, which
> looks amazingly like 1591 but is dated 99.5.21, seem current. and 1591 is
> generally considered current.
Doesn't change the fact that gov, mil, edu, and int are managed in a
vastly different fashion than com, net, and org. I also note that
http://www.iana.org/tld-deleg-prac.html now quotes the word
"generic", which is a general indication that the term is being used
in a special, non-standard way. Furthermore, it is really quite
different from 1591, in that the entire discussion of gTLDs has been
removed. Finally, the indentation is different, and the headings
aren't numbered. :-) Note the smiley.
Tell you what -- let's revisit this question 3 years from now, over
a sasparilla, somewhere.
In the meantime, could you comment on why you think that IETF
proceedures for Working Groups are not appropriate for the DNSO? Or
do you think they could be adapted for such use, and if so, what
changes would be necessary?
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain