Re: Request to Move RFC 954 to Historic Status

On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 12:18 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> In the RIPE NCC database group, we've had bad experiences with the
> rfc-ignorant people in the past.  They don't like our policies, but
> have been unwilling to participate in any of our forums - by which I
> mean open mailing lists - to change the policies to meet their needs.

Errrr, nobody gave me the info on any to join. I know a number of RIPE 
folks are on our mailing list, though. Send me information off-list on 
what lists you think would be appropriate, if you would, and I'll be 
sub'ed to them within 24 hours. :)

> Regarding your proposal, I agree.  Or perhaps a "protocol-only" RFC
> could replace it.

For what it's worth, we (the RFCI folks) have always said 954 needed 
some serious updating. A "protocol-only" RFC is fine, but then there's 
no guidance of any kind as to what needs to be available for 
requestors, and there are a lot of valid reasons for requiring 
availability of such things as out of band contact info like snailmail 
and phone, which many ccTLD operators leave off. At the same time, 
e-mail is the de facto norm for "instant" communication.

That's a whole different morass, though.

D