Subject: Re: your mail (fwd)

From: Chris Yarnell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:29:07 -0700 (PDT)

Resending to [email-masked].

---
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Yarnell <[email-masked]>
To: namedroppers <[email-masked]>
Cc: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Jun Murai <[email-masked]>,
     junsec <[email-masked]>, Kato Akira <[email-masked]>,
     Mark Kosters <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
     Ray Plzak <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Paul A Vixie <[email-masked]>,
     [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
     [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: your mail

I agree with Bill's assessment.  

I'd like to see each "MUST" backed up by a small blurb explaining the
reason it's a MUST.  That would be good for all of the SHOULD's, too, but
definately for the MUST's.  Some of them do attempt to explain why they
are in there but others do not, such as section 2.7.

> 	It looks like very little of the discussion that occured on the
> namedroppers mailing list as a result of the posting of your first draft
> has made it into your second iteration.  And given the name change, 
> many people will never know that many of the root operators have already
> raised concerns about presumptions made and not backed up in these drafts.
> I find it odd that these documents in no way reflect any relationship to
> RFC 2010, "Operational Criteria for Root Name Servers". 

----   
Chris Yarnell - [email-masked] - 650-604-0726