Re: Request to Move RFC 954 to Historic Status

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[cc's limited to ietf-whois and iesg lists]
> ... and should be postponed until - at bare minimum - a new/updated
> RFC defines the protocol ...

954 is ignored by or irrelavent to a lot of registry (name and address)
operators. 

See whois++, whois-fix, X.500, ... the wait may be considerable.

> We can debate what the policy RFC would say at a later date. ;-)

In some other body than the IETF.

A proposal for one or more mechanisms capable of supporting types of
policy _could_ be the subject of contributors to the IETF. Mechanism
is "in scope". Policy isn't, or rubbish like a nation state's tests
for intent and residence for use of the DNS [1] could be standards-track
nstead of junk I-Ds. Incidently, the mechanism in [1] is rubbish also.

Eric

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-epp-ustld-00.txt