[Ccpdp-rm] On RFC1591 and "binding"
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Thu Apr 22 16:07:09 UTC 2021
Kim,
"RFC as interpreted by FoI"
and in any case we are only concerned with the ccTLD aspect of things
so none of your 5 points are helpful.
But, just to make this clear, pick and choose can't be happening.
el
On 2021-04-22 17:04 , Kim Davies via Ccpdp-rm wrote:
> Quoting Peter Koch via Ccpdp-rm on Wednesday April 21, 2021:
>>
>>> Moreover, a quick review shows any number of RFC’s Jon Postel penned
>>> in whole or in part have been obsoleted by subsequent RFC’s by
>>> different authors.
>> ...
>>> There is an argument here that 1591 itself needs to be updated and
>>> made obsolete, though it’s well beyond the scope of this working
>>> group. FoI could have made this recommendation but did not.
>>
>> The observation that 1591 is effectively immutable is a feature,
>> methinks.
>
> If some aspects of RFC 1591 cannot be considered obsolete, and the
> entire document is retroactively deemed to be requirements, we have a
> bit of a problem. Some requirements from RFC 1591 that have not been
> complied with for decades include:
>
> * .NET is restricted to network providers
> * New TLD requests must be submitted via email to
> hostmaster at internic.net
> * WHOIS service at rs.internic.net, using NIC handles as
> arguments
> * InterNIC acting as the regional registry for North America
> * Paul Mockapetris being the POC for .INT registrations
>
> I am little concerned if there a desire for unwavering adherence to
> RFC 1591 without room for assessing applicability in line with today's
> operational realities.
>
> kim
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
More information about the Ccpdp-rm
mailing list