[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "'provreg List'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:30:03 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes

> 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.

Would it not make more sense to define a TTL within the payload that deals
with all time periods? If this is to be truly applicable to all models, we
must ensure that we move forward with the philosophy that this protocol will
be used predominantly in environments which do not yet exist (over the
longer term). It is highly likely that these environments will employ models
that also do not yet exist. Therefore, putting a stake in the ground around
"years" seems to be remarkably short-sighted in my mind. If we accomodate
for TTL's, we can let the applications sort out the expiry models.

Thanks,

-rwr



Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492




Home | Date list | Subject list