DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: draft-higgs (Re: [ga-roots] Capture and Diversion)

On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:31:27PM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >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.

That is, you have unanimous support except for those who oppose you.  
A fine example of your talent for twisting words..

> The bottom line is that there are no collisions in the name space - 
> anywhere - and this is the only way to prevent them.

The *only* way?!?!?

> Cat herding, if
> you will. 
> So, if you insist on opposing this draft, you are really voting for a root 
> fragmentation.

Once again, you exhibit an amazing talent for twisting the truth.

> That's a fine example for the IETF chair to set.

Yes, Harald has set a fine example, and he is to be commended for it.
If the IETF had been just a tiny bit more involved in these issues from 
an earlier time, then a lot of this nonsense about alternate roots might 
never have started in the first place.

Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>