I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )

Fri May 3 17:54:02 UTC 1996

> > I've added ROUTING to do what TROUBLE is often used to do.
> 
> I question whether this is a good idea -- some providers have a
> "routing" mailing list that isn't really intended for public
> dissemination and use. For instance, routing at uunet.uu.net and
> routing at es.net both bypass their respective NOCs and go straight to
> engineering types -- perhaps we need to pick a new name for those
> sorts of lists, but I really don't see what having a "routing"
> buys us over "noc".

This is the kind of collision that makes this "standard" expensive to
implement.  Folks elsewhere use ROUTING as a way to reach the folks
who want to hear about externally visible routing problems; NETCOM
for example advertises this address in its RADB elements.  I think
that folks like UUNET and ESNET will have to pick new addresses if
they don't want their engineers getting spammed.  Sorry about that.