Re: Ping

   First, I'd like to point out that the OID-based scheme is no longer in the
   process draft.  After listening at the last WG meeting, talking with many of

Apologies for missing this change.

   the more active members of the WG, and putting the idea out on the list,
   Rich and I rewrote the draft to (a) document the process for the IETF tree,
   and (b) document further process for creating new trees, through the filing
   of other RFCs.  The vnd doc is the first effort in this direction.  (I've
   spoken with Yaron Goland, the author of the DNS scheme, and he stated an
   interest in touching up that draft and resubmitting it as an alternate tree,
   pursuant to the process doc.)  

   You mention other properties that appear to have vanished -- can you be more
   specific?  I'd really like to discuss them, both here on the list and at

There was a belief that the OID would not have to change in the case
of an organizational structure change (e.g., merger/split).  I have
seen no evidence that this would be the case and evidence that it
would not.

   least informally in Minneapolis; the process doc is not set in stone, but we
   would like to get it finished soon.  

I'd be happy to get together to talk (I'm from Mpls/St Paul).  When/where?

   BTW, I agree that the DNS-based method has some benefits, but there were
   also some drawbacks and concerns discussed at the last WG meeting and on the
   list.  The vnd.* scheme syntax is already in use, at least informally, and
   seemed to have the benefits of broad interest and significant utility.
   That's why I chose it for formalization.  DNS may well be next... if there's
   enough interest.  

Craig