[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       namedroppers
Subject:    Re: WG Last Call: RFC2137 to Historic
From:       "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3 () torque ! pothole ! com>
Date:       2000-08-14 18:25:54
[Download RAW message or body]

Since I'm not aware of any successful implementation of RFC2137, I'm
not sure that it matters one way or the other.

Donald

From:  "Barr Hibbs" <rbhibbs@ultraDNS.com>
To:  "DNSEXT WG Mailing list" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Date:  Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:13:59 -0700
Message-ID:  <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNMEBICGAA.rbhibbs@ultraDNS.com>
In-Reply-To:  <4.3.2.7.2.20000803144629.00d147a0@localhost>

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 11:59 AM
>>
>> This last call is to solicit opinion of the WG if RFC2137 status
>> should be changed from "Obsoleted by RFC2xxx" to "Historic".
>>
>> The reason for doing this is to make it real clear to anyone that RFC2137
>> is NOT to be implemented.
>
>...no disagreement with the change, but... [I almost hate to ask this!]
>human nature being what it is, will the designation as "Historic" actually
>dissuade anyone from implementing?  After all, if the status is now
>Historic, then it must have once been valid, and thus implementations based
>on 2137 "ought to be" upward compatible with its successors....
>
>Is there any standardized text that could be added to the introduction which
>would make clear that 2137 is not to be implemented?
>
>--Barr Hibbs
>  UltraDNS Corp.


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]