Re: draft-higgs (Re: [ga-roots] Capture and Diversion)

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 01:45 PM 5/4/01 +0200, you wrote:
>At 11:05 02.05.2001 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>Then can we all assume ICANN will fully comply with this IETF document 
>>once it becomes an RFC:
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-root-defs-00.txt
>>
>>The DNSO should be fully supporting this effort to prevent collisions 
>>between roots.
>
>on this point, I can claim to speak with a tiny bit of authority.
>
>just to make the formalities clear:
>
>1) The author of draft-higgs chose not to grant to the IETF the rights to
>    publish his draft as an RFC, even if it wanted to. See the copyright
>    notice in the preface ("is NOT offered in conformance with...")

And once again you are incorrect. It's published as an internet draft using 
the IETF's own "boilerplate" wording - I chose "Mandatory Statement" #3 as 
it does not grant derivative rights:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance
    with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF
    with any rights other than to publish as-is.

Rights are granted to publish "as-is" without changes to the content or 
relinquishing the copyright to the ISOC. In other words, you can't alter or 
modify it, and create a derivative work to remove liability from ICANN for 
creating/causing a name space collision.

>2) The author of draft-higgs has not asked the RFC Editor or the IESG to
>    consider publishing his document as any type of RFC (informational or
>    BCP; standards-track would be inappropriate for this text)

Correct. I will ask on the next draft. This version is the first draft and 
not ready for prime time. How many first drafts get published as RFCs? 
Almost none.

>3) There has been no indication that a request for such publication would
>    be met with a positive response. Especially, there has been no
>    demonstration of the IETF consensus required for BCP publication; info
>    RFCs are not the IETF's opinion about anything.

There has also been no indication that a request for such publication would 
be met with a negative response. There have been no negative comments 
received. All have been positive. I'm not counting IAB comments, as they 
are part of the problem.

The bottom line is that there are no collisions in the name space - 
anywhere - and this is the only way to prevent them. Cat herding, if you will.

So, if you insist on opposing this draft, you are really voting for a root 
fragmentation. That's a fine example for the IETF chair to set.



Best Regards,

Simon

--
DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html