All,
I need a clarification -- does this proposal tacitly imply that
the rest of the PSO-PC sees no need to address the issues I raised
on Friday?
As they were not issues I dreamt up personally, but rather a proposal
based on what I'd heard from people who need to work with the
"interpretation" of our draft proposal, I suggest people thing harder
before ignoring the proposed changes.
Thanks,
Leslie.
azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES wrote:
>
> Dear Vlad, dear PSO PC colleagues,
>
> I have a couple of comments to make to your message:
>
> - firstly it should be sent to Stuart Lynn and not only Louis Touton.
>
> - I suggest a unified text with the final statement from PSO rather than 2
> statements, one from ITU SG2 and another one from the rest.
>
> I make here a proposal for the unified text based on the 2 paragraphs:
>
> "The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root
> Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and
> standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there
> appears to be no technical reason for changing from the present working
> system, as
> this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use by the
> DNS. Additional issues such as administrative and national sovereignty
> considerations reinforce the benefits to keep the present Single
> Authoritative Root Server System.
> As a conclusion, the PSO PC supports the content of RFC 2826. "
>
> What do your think?.
> Kind regards,
> Azucena
> At 15:00 17/09/01 +0200, Androuchko, Vladimir wrote:
> >Hello,
> >Dear Protocol Council Members,
> >Here is the draft text that I intend to send to Mr. L. Touton.
> >Please, give me your comments.
> >Best regards,
> >Vladimir
> >
> >Dear Mr. Luis Tuton,
> >As it was agreed during the last conference call of the PSO-PC,
> >Members of the Protocol Council were waiting the results of ITU-T Study
> >Group 2 on alternative roots issue.
> >Please, find thereafter the conclusion reached at their Meeting (Geneva,
> >4-14 September 2001):
> >
> >"Study Group 2 has noted the PSO statement and has no objections to it.
> >However, Study Group 2 notes that there may be other issues in addition to
> >technical reasons such as administrative and national sovereignty
> >considerations."
> >
> >Here is the provisionally agreed statement of the Protocol Council of 4
> >September 2001:
> >
> >"The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root
> >Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and
> >standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there
> >appears no technical reason for changing from the present working system, as
> >this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use by the
> >DNS. "
> >Best regards,
> >Vladimir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> *************************************************
> Azucena Hernandez
> Telefonica
> Desarrollo de Red
> c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID
> Tel: +34 91 5846842
> Fax: +34 91 5846843
> GSM: +34 609 425506
> E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es
> ************************************************
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans
are written in pencil."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------