IP Space

[Clayton Lambert]

What I am refering to as non-vendor specific is just that: it is wrong to
create a public policy that addresses specific limitations with SPECIFIC
vendor's software.  What this means is that wrapping the policy around MS is
wrong and it provides an unfair advantage for that vendor, in comparison to
that vendors competitors.  I am not suggesting that a policy be created that
does not take into accound the overall availability of compatible solutions
(i.e. all/most the vendors in a given arena).

I agree with your statement that:

"I believe that any policy you set must account for the reality of what's
available (commercially and free) to the vast majority of web sites on
the Internet.  Setting a policy that can't be followed by users of
Apache, Netscape and IIS, for starters, is completely unreasonable, and
I would oppose such a policy vigorously."

I would also oppose such a policy.  I do NOT see the documentation
requirement, nor the HTTP1.1 policy in general as a policy that cannot be
supported by the majority of users.

-Clayton



-----Original Message-----
From: AveHost.com Staff [mailto:info at avehost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:19 PM
To: Bill Van Emburg
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Policy at Arin. Net'
Subject: RE: IP Space



The numbers I quoted was from the dellhost.com website.  And I agree with
you, perhaps IIS is vendor specific but the problem I was referring to was
NOT vendor specific.

AveHost.com Staff
AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International
201-840-7311

-----Original Message-----
From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
Of Bill Van Emburg
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:31 PM
To: info at avehost.com
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Policy at Arin. Net'
Subject: Re: IP Space


Actually, I do question your numbers.  The last I heard, more sites on
the Internet were running Apache than anything else.  Your numbers
derive from an ill-defined subset of "the largest retail sites."  By
whose definition?

However, more to the point, while IIS numbers certainly *are*
vendor-specific, I disagree strongly with Mr. Lambert's statement, "I
think it is erroneous to hold policies to vendor-specific limitations."

I believe that any policy you set must account for the reality of what's
available (commercially and free) to the vast majority of web sites on
the Internet.  Setting a policy that can't be followed by users of
Apache, Netscape and IIS, for starters, is completely unreasonable, and
I would oppose such a policy vigorously.
--

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"AveHost.com Staff" wrote:
>
> I think any policy that affects the operation of IIS, in any version, is
> hardly "vendor specific" as many, many servers on the public Internet are
> running IIS, in fact, 47% of the secure sites and 52% of the largest
retail
> sites on the Internet are running on Microsoft Windows®.   Are you going
to
> tell me those are "vendor specific" numbers?
>
> AveHost.com Staff
> AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International
> 201-840-7311
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 9:31 PM
> To: info at avehost.com; 'Susan Zeigler'
> Cc: 'Policy at Arin. Net'
> Subject: RE: IP Space
>
> I think it is erroneous to hold policies to vendor-specific limitations.
> Protocol support should be the primary focus for policy.
>
> Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
> Of AveHost.com Staff
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:41 PM
> To: Susan Zeigler
> Cc: Policy at Arin. Net
> Subject: RE: IP Space
>
> Susan:
>
> I mean no disrespect but that is not current possible in IIS 4 or IIS 5.o.
> There is no way to make an instance of a site in IIS 4 or 5 use SSL with
the
> same IP, IIS blocks it with an error message.  Thus, it DOES hold lots of
> water!
>