[CWG-Stewardship] Follow up on II.A (was Re: For your review - version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:07:01AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
> and yet, as you called out earlier, RFC 1591 says, "It is a short document
> intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that
> time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion.”

I don't believe 1591 says that anywhere in it.  I just grepped for
"short" and I do not find it.  The text you're quoting there is from
the current CWG draft.

> so it DOES say,  “this is how things were”. And its an outline.  It is not prescriptive going forward.

Nothing in the RFC series is ever prescriptive going forward, because
you can always obsolete an RFC with a replacement.  

> Agree that when DT-H is formed, these topics will have a venue.  Perhaps we can chat @ DFW, if you 
> will be there.

Sure.  I will be.  Busy week, though.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com