[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules
At 11:25 AM 2/10/98 +0000, Peter Curran wrote:
>I support the criteria that you have established for the creation of new
>I think that the application by BT-Labs should go ahead - they clearly meet
>the criteria that you have established.
>I think the drawback to approaching the list every time a new pTLA is
>proposed or requested is that 'concensus' is likely to be based on only a
>couple of guys putting an opinion forward. Would it not be more sensible
>to approve pTLA assignment for organisations such as BT-Labs who clearly
>meet the criteria without reference to the list. I think that you should
>request judgement from the 6bone community only if there is some doubt
>about the qualifications of the applicant or where some of the criteria are
>not wholly met.
I'll think on this one. Jim Bound has a similar point of view.
>Whilst on the subject, is it not time to start bearing down on those
>backbone sites that have a pTLA assigned, but do not appear to be following
>the 'rules'? For example, I still find the odd RFC1897 address popping up
>when I do a traceroute across the backbone. Likewise, some sites would
>appear to be semi-permamently disconnected - from a couple of discussions
>with other sites this would appear to be caused by inappropriate routing
Yep. It's almost time to start (to confess, I've been busy on other things
and not had the time yet...but will soon).
Thanks for your comments,