To:
"'provreg List'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Geva Patz <geva@bbn.com>
Date:
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:15:31 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<3.0.5.32.20001220100648.03d4f100@mail.nic.nu>; from bsemich@worldnames.net on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 10:06:48AM -0500
Mail-Followup-To:
'provreg List' <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 10:06:48AM -0500, J. William Semich wrote: > Many (the majority?) of the ccTLDs require a minimum two-year initial > registration period. Precisely my point. Minimum and maximum initial periods and renewal periods are all policy issues, not protocol issues. The protocol should allow policy to be expressed, but shouldn't dictate policy through design limitations. We shouldn't even mandate that registrations need expire: although the contrary is true only in a small minority of cases, we should nonetheless cater for these cases, particularly if we envisage the protocol potentially being used to register other classes of objects (AS registrations, for instance, don't expire). The protocol should allow an expiry date to be specified, but shouldn't require it, and certainly shouldn't constrain it to one-year resolution. -- Geva