Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 16:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: cname lookup effort
In-reply-to: <19961004230519.465.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: Directed Revision/Update of Message Standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961004162242.1086m-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Past experience has shown that CNAME discussions on drums are a rathole.
> Oh? When did these previous troublesome discussions take place?

There was a long rathole discussion at the last IETF.

> The current 821bis draft has made some changes from 1123. When were
> these changes considered, let alone approved, on this mailing list?

The document editors' job is to write the best document they can and to
follow the directives of the group.  In cases where the group has not
reached concensus, the document editor may write whatever he feels
appropriate and the group can choose to accept it or change it.  I do not
want to micro-manage the document editors as that is counter-productive.
History has proved that groups usually can't write good documents.

> Anyway, my question is what the current requirements mean. I'm not
> suggesting any changes. Surely you're not proposing that DRUMS operate
> in ignorance of the current rules?

No, but I suspect we all agree that that particular rule is unclear and
not followed in practice.