Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?
Sandy and all stakeholders, assembly members or interested parties,
Sandy Harris wrote:
> Eric Dierker wrote:
> Replying to one list, with insane cc list trimmed.
Insane? Hummm? I was not aware that you were so
eminently qualified to make such diagnosis especially
based upon a posting to several forums? My apologies
my dear Doctor, is I am thusly mistaken. However, as
I am not so qualified admittedly myself, I would tend to
disagree that propagation of this dialog is in error
in any way as in doing so is a way of making all those
that are interested parties can partake. Therefore
I have taken the liberty of re-adding the cc's to
other forums to which this dialog was originally
intended and had been participating.
Thank you Sandy for helping our fellow stakeholder
with the information you provided. One Eric Dierker,
so as to provide him with the necessary and helpful
information to which he seemed to lack adequate
information about, and is either unable or unwilling
to research for himself.
> > Thank you for your comments,
> > 1. When should a RFC be disregarded? What is the criteria?
> RFCs come in various categories. Some of them (I'm not sure if this is the
> complete list) are:
> best current practices (BCP)
> standards track
> Within the standards track, they go through stages. Proposed standard, draft
> standard, standard.
> The ones that have made it to actual standard gat an STD number in addition
> to their RFC number. They are listed at:
> These, you disregard at your peril. They are the official definition of how
> the Internet works.
> BCPs and informational RFCs are not standards, but usually worth paying
> some attention to.
> Experimental RFCs can be ignored unless you want to participate in the
> experiment. For example, there's an experimental RFC for the Photuris
> protocol to do key exchange for secure tunnels across the net. A few
> people, like the OpenBSD folks, implement Photuris and follow that RFC.
> Most people just implement the standards-track IKE protocol instead.
> In theory, proposed and draft standards could be ignored. In practice,
> quite a few companies or open source projects implement things that
> are still in those stages. Sometimes they implement things that are
> still Internet DRafts and haven't even made it to Proposed.
> > 2. If circumstances warrant differing from an RFC should one first
> > challenge the existing RFC?
> RFCs are frequently replaced, updated, or labelled as obsolete.
> If you have a problem with a particular RFC, search for the Working
> Group that deals with it on www.ietf.org, subscribe to their mailing
> list, and join discussions leading to an update. All IETF WGs are
> open to anyone interested, a practice I think ICANN should adopt
> instead of its restrictive Task Force approach.
> However, I very strongly recommend lurking for a few weeks -- getting
> a feel for the issues, the tone, and the players -- before posting.
> These are Working Groups; political noises that do not contribute
> to the work will be rejected, and perhaps not gently.
> So wiil technical nonsense that might be tolerated here. See, for
> example, a polite response to Fleming's "ipv8" stuff:
> or the more direct ones:
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html