[Ietf-not43] -02 c's and q's...

[Ross Wm. Rader]

> > Which opt-out are you referring to - server or registrant?
>
> Server opt-out.  I'm worried about drifting into server-to-server
> protocols.

I hear you, but it would be tremendously useful to be able to send something
out to all nodes in the cloud basically saying "don't bother me for x
cycles..." as a response to the first unwanted query or similar.

Unplugging eth0 has pretty much the same net effect, so I'm not going to
ankle-bite this one...

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Hardie" <Ted.Hardie@nominum.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <Ted.Hardie@nominum.com>; <ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] -02 c's and q's...


> >
> > > I personal like the "lightweight" language above, but I am concerned
> > > about the opt-out mechanism.  If the mechanism is simple enough to
> > > opt out without requiring a server-to-server interchange, I think
> > > life will be better; I also don't think we can use crisp as the
> > > protocol to conduct that interchange, so I am leary of the
requirement.
> >
> > Which opt-out are you referring to - server or registrant?
>
> Server opt-out.  I'm worried about drifting into server-to-server
> protocols.
> regards,
> Ted Hardie