| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0700 or thereabouts, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> As proposed, that recognizably distinct address was a subdomain. However, |
| 3 |
> infra has objected to that as unworkable. However, the wording of the |
| 4 |
> GLEP makes it clear that the subdomain was a proposal and that the details |
| 5 |
> were to be worked out. What this "possible solution" does is provide a |
| 6 |
> way for that to happen -- something infra shouldn't have issues with, |
| 7 |
> while at the same time, implementing that aspect of the GLEP as adopted by |
| 8 |
> the council. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The "possible solution" offers no technical or administrative advantages |
| 11 |
over creating a sub-domain in the first place. The two solutions are |
| 12 |
essentially equal. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> What I'm saying is that this is a solution consistent with the "situation |
| 15 |
> on the ground" as we no have it. Sure, we can argue that the situation |
| 16 |
> should be different, but this, from my viewpoint, is a pragmatic solution |
| 17 |
> to a very tough and controversial problem, that the council has |
| 18 |
> none-the-less expressed its view on, with said view approaching IMO about |
| 19 |
> the best possible compromise between the opposing viewpoints. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This solution has the same yellow star stigma that the original proposal |
| 22 |
does. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I'm just trying to provide a way (thanks to the original suggestor) to |
| 25 |
> "get some progress on the ground", instead of seeing it constantly |
| 26 |
> debated, with no real conclusion or practical application of the debate in |
| 27 |
> sight. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The only outstanding administrative issue is how these aliases are managed. |
| 30 |
The same management issues exist regardless of whether we're talking about |
| 31 |
foo.tester@g.o or foo@×××××××××××××.org. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
--kurt |
Archives