W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > June 2001

RE: Scheduling for London

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:13:21 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010620141128.024a1f30@brandenburg.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, ietf-whois@imc.org
ahhh.  yes.  Thanks, Scott.

NOW I remember why things got bogged down:

         The problem is with needing to distinguish mechanism from policy.

The constrained IETF efforts needs to specify mechanism only.  If possible, 
it should "require" no specific data in a response.  Any that it DOES 
require should be very minimal and utterly essential to operational 
requirements.

The real policy work, for deciding what to put in a response, can be 
debated elsewhere.

d/


At 01:58 PM 6/20/2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 3:47 PM
> > To: Dave Crocker; Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
> > Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org; ietf-whois@imc.org; brunner@nic-naa.net
> > Subject: Re: Scheduling for London
>
>
> > But, as Dave says, this is not a walk in the park. Significant work is
> > needed before a meeting will be fruitful.
>
>How relevant do folks see the work previously agreed to within ICANN circles
>to prescribe the info that must be returned in response to a domain name
>query?  Good building block, or still too muddled to form the basis of
>something to work from?
>
><Scott/>

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 17:12:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:08:12 UTC