This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/
[dns-wg] NTIA response - v5
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA response - v5
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA response - v5
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Fri Nov 7 12:36:30 CET 2008
On Nov 6, 2008, at 18:10, Peter Koch wrote: > I doubt that any attempt, be that by reflex or by perceived attempt > and > angenda, to introduce bureaucracy can simply be defeated by a "no" > statement, but so be it. This is true. The people who make those arguments for a new organisation or role to oversee DNSSEC in the root will make them regardless. But for those who have to debate that issue at places like IGF, it would be helpful them to point to community statements which say "we don't see a technical justification for adding another level of bureaucracy to the process".
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA response - v5
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NTIA response - v5
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]