Re: draft-higgs (Re: [ga-roots] Capture and Diversion)
Simon and all,
Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 01:45 PM 5/4/01 +0200, you wrote:
> >At 11:05 02.05.2001 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >>Then can we all assume ICANN will fully comply with this IETF document
> >>once it becomes an RFC:
> >>The DNSO should be fully supporting this effort to prevent collisions
> >>between roots.
> >on this point, I can claim to speak with a tiny bit of authority.
> >just to make the formalities clear:
> >1) The author of draft-higgs chose not to grant to the IETF the rights to
> > publish his draft as an RFC, even if it wanted to. See the copyright
> > notice in the preface ("is NOT offered in conformance with...")
> And once again you are incorrect. It's published as an internet draft using
> the IETF's own "boilerplate" wording - I chose "Mandatory Statement" #3 as
> it does not grant derivative rights:
Thank you Simon for the clarity. I had hoped that Harald would have been
a bit more clear in his response.
> This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance
> with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF
> with any rights other than to publish as-is.
Exactly right. Harald, you should know this hands down. It is obvious you
do not. As such, possibly you should consider a in-depth review for your own
> Rights are granted to publish "as-is" without changes to the content or
> relinquishing the copyright to the ISOC. In other words, you can't alter or
> modify it, and create a derivative work to remove liability from ICANN for
> creating/causing a name space collision.
Good point here as well Simon.
> >2) The author of draft-higgs has not asked the RFC Editor or the IESG to
> > consider publishing his document as any type of RFC (informational or
> > BCP; standards-track would be inappropriate for this text)
> Correct. I will ask on the next draft. This version is the first draft and
> not ready for prime time. How many first drafts get published as RFCs?
> Almost none.
Exactly, I don't recall any first drafts ever getting published as an RFC...
> >3) There has been no indication that a request for such publication would
> > be met with a positive response. Especially, there has been no
> > demonstration of the IETF consensus required for BCP publication; info
> > RFCs are not the IETF's opinion about anything.
> There has also been no indication that a request for such publication would
> be met with a negative response. There have been no negative comments
> received. All have been positive. I'm not counting IAB comments, as they
> are part of the problem.
> The bottom line is that there are no collisions in the name space -
> anywhere - and this is the only way to prevent them. Cat herding, if you will.
Well there are a number of ways to prevent collisions. Yours is one.
> So, if you insist on opposing this draft, you are really voting for a root
> fragmentation. That's a fine example for the IETF chair to set.
> Best Regards,
> DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html