人物プロフィール
人物BTWディレクトリは、Edward Lewisに関する公開記録をまとめています。
確認できる情報は役割: RFC 4592 editor, affiliated with NeuStar in the July 2006 RFC (NeuStar)を網羅しています。
出典に基づく事実
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
Edward proposes withholding public name-server listings for disconnected networks to limit lame delegations, with listings permitted after connection. One amendment proposal does not establish stability over time or unqualified support for every part of 2004-3.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · Edward proposes withholding public name-server listings for disconnected networks to limit lame delegations, with listings permitted after connection. One amendment proposal does not establish stability over time or unqualified support for every part of 2004-3.
条件: The proposed DNS restriction is not present in the retained final text and is not treated as an adopted requirement.
I would like to add that these registrations are barred from listing name servers.
If a disconnected network numbered under this policy is to be connected to the Internet, only then should name servers be permitted.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The DNS amendment addresses consequences for public delegations, while the RSA questions address who is affected by contract revisions and how a veto works. No mutually exclusive position is expressed, but the difference in subject and the absence of repeated positions prevent a stronger consistency judgement.
条件: The absence of a visible contradiction is not proof of an enduring general position.
the point is to limit the spread of lame DNS delegations.
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
He welcomes the effort on RSA modification procedure while asking whether revisions are global or registrant-specific and what the Board veto clause means. These questions qualify the interest expressed; one contribution cannot establish his later settled view.
ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · He welcomes the effort on RSA modification procedure while asking whether revisions are global or registrant-specific and what the Board veto clause means. These questions qualify the interest expressed; one contribution cannot establish his later settled view.
条件: Interest in the initiative is not unqualified endorsement of all proposed wording. · A request to explain the veto must not be classified as opposition to having any veto.
Thanks, Owen, I like the effort.
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
Do you mean that BoT, under advice of council, has authority to veto?
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The DNS amendment addresses consequences for public delegations, while the RSA questions address who is affected by contract revisions and how a veto works. No mutually exclusive position is expressed, but the difference in subject and the absence of repeated positions prevent a stronger consistency judgement.
条件: The absence of a visible contradiction is not proof of an enduring general position.
the point is to limit the spread of lame DNS delegations.
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
