🚀 go-pugleaf

Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix)



>I suspect that if the NIC gets too high-handed about doling out the
>domain address space in the US, that we can get somebody like NBS,
>ANSI, or AT&T to do it in a more even-handed fashion.  ("Gee, you
>*want* to hook up your mail system with us?  Good idea, let us know
>what names you want" instead of "Grump grump, here, read these 1000 pages
>of documentation and tell us your 5-year plan to convert to Our Way of
>Doing Things -- then we'll consider it".)  Where is it in the military
>services' charter to control the domestic email address space?
>-- 
>Copyright 1987 John Gilmore; you can redistribute only if your recipients can.

Whoa, John, hold on there.

There's an old joke about two old men talking about what kind of fancy
carraige they would each build if they were rich. They get into an
argument about some detail and finally one of them erupts "FINE! THEN
GET OUT OF MY CARRAIGE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!"

Has the NIC disapproved anything? Has anyone brought this discussion
to, perhaps, the TCP/IP mailing list for discussion? Does anyone not
believe that a lot of those RFCs we all point to exist precisely to
overturn earlier RFCs because someone pointed out a problem? Has
anyone known the NIC (et al) to reject an attempt to fix things up?

Umm, why doesn't someone ask? Most decisions I've seen were simply based
upon their stated goals; to provide standards for interoperability in
highly heterogeneous networking (successfully I might add.)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University