Profil de personne
PersonneRandy Bush est suivi comme personne, avec des elements qui eclairent son identite, son role ou son contexte operationnel.
Les données disponibles couvrent Rôles: Executive Board Member (RIPE NCC).
Appuie l'identite, le role ou le contexte organisationnel de Randy Bush.
public people profile
Dernière mise à jour: 2026-09-28
Faits sourcés
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune évaluation de cohérence validée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained message explicitly welcomes cleaning up lame reverse-DNS delegations and proposes operational checks and visible removal records. With only one message here, the evidence establishes that position but cannot establish whether it changed over time.
Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained message explicitly welcomes cleaning up lame reverse-DNS delegations and proposes operational checks and visible removal records. With only one message here, the evidence establishes that position but cannot establish whether it changed over time.
Réserves: Assessment is limited to the retained March 2002 contribution.
yes!!! at last, something to move towards cleaning up bad data and keeping it clean. thank you!
Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Évaluation: Cohérent · Supporting removal of broken DNS delegations is compatible with asking a new internal-address design to avoid unreachable DNS data and related operational failures. Both contributions consider effects on working systems; their different policy subjects do not make the stances contradictory.
Réserves: This is a comparison of the stated operational concerns, not a claim that both policies have the same remedy or that Bush supported every detail.
removed. whois cruisin' humans are not hurt by lamers, systems using dns are.
o dns entries with unreachables on the rhs o traceroutes through infrastructure o dns dynupd for unreachables
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
Bush first asks that experimental allocations use the IETF consensus process rather than a narrower experimental-RFC condition. His follow-up clarifies that this concerns the process used to evaluate proposals, not who may originate them. The clarification preserves his earlier condition.
Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
Évaluation: Cohérent · Bush first asks that experimental allocations use the IETF consensus process rather than a narrower experimental-RFC condition. His follow-up clarifies that this concerns the process used to evaluate proposals, not who may originate them. The clarification preserves his earlier condition.
Réserves: He expressly speaks as an IETF member, not as its representative. · The record does not establish an IAB decision or restrict proposal authorship to IETF members.
refers to rfc 2434 section 2 and uses the phrase "ietf consensus process."
the issue is what standards organization's process is used to process a proposal. in that case, indeed i am saying it should be ietf's. note that this is not who may think of proposals.
Experimental Internet Resource Allocations · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The requirement for an IETF consensus process in experimental allocations does not supply a position on the design merits of internal-address micro-allocations. The latter messages raise engineering questions; the evidence supports neither a conflict between these positions nor a common final endorsement.
Réserves: Standards-process authority and address-design consequences are distinct questions.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The question about binding locators to identifiers and the later questions about leakage, DNS and diagnostics address complementary design consequences. Neither message states a blanket vote on the proposal; no contradictory position is expressed in these two messages.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Évaluation: Cohérent · The question about binding locators to identifiers and the later questions about leakage, DNS and diagnostics address complementary design consequences. Neither message states a blanket vote on the proposal; no contradictory position is expressed in these two messages.
Réserves: Technical questions are not an endorsement or rejection of the whole proposal.
is this another binding of locators to identifiers?
could folk please explain how these various suggestions differ from 1918 on the dimensions which seem operationally annoying today?
Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Évaluation: Cohérent · Supporting removal of broken DNS delegations is compatible with asking a new internal-address design to avoid unreachable DNS data and related operational failures. Both contributions consider effects on working systems; their different policy subjects do not make the stances contradictory.
Réserves: This is a comparison of the stated operational concerns, not a claim that both policies have the same remedy or that Bush supported every detail.
removed. whois cruisin' humans are not hurt by lamers, systems using dns are.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
the issue is what standards organization's process is used to process a proposal.
is this another binding of locators to identifiers?
o dns entries with unreachables on the rhs o traceroutes through infrastructure o dns dynupd for unreachables
Experimental Internet Resource Allocations · 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The requirement for an IETF consensus process in experimental allocations does not supply a position on the design merits of internal-address micro-allocations. The latter messages raise engineering questions; the evidence supports neither a conflict between these positions nor a common final endorsement.
Réserves: Standards-process authority and address-design consequences are distinct questions.
the issue is what standards organization's process is used to process a proposal.
is this another binding of locators to identifiers?