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

List:       rfci-discuss
Subject:    Re: [RFCI-Discuss] Re: Incorrect listing of 202/7, 210/7 by
From:       "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk () queernet ! org>
Date:       2001-10-23 15:38:56
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.0.20011023083704.06095460 () gopostal ! onlinepolicy ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

At 08:27 AM 10/23/2001 -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>Methinks the phrase "de facto" is lost upon you.
>
>It _IS_ the de facto root. Just as Microsoft Word is the de facto standard 
>for exchanging documents in offices these days. A de facto standard 
>doesn't necessarily have some formal blessing or a document saying "this 
>is the way". It simply "is" because of the quantity of people using it as such.
>
>Given that most people "start their search" @ the ARIN whois, because of 
>its referrals, it _IS_ the de facto standard. You can tilt at windmills or 
>clap for Tinkerbell as much as you like, but it is _IS_ in fact the 
>_de_facto_ standard.
>
>So the question is: "Is being the de facto standard enough of a reason to 
>treat it as if it was the 'blessed' standard?"

I'd make the case that your asking this question makes it not as much a de 
facto root as it was before.

"De facto" and "next best thing till the real one comes along" aren't quite 
the same thing.

But at any rate, I think (for what it's worth) you've made a reasonable 
decision, and applaud you... now it's time for us to push for a de jure root.


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