To:
"'provreg List'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"J. William Semich" <bsemich@worldnames.net>
Date:
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:21:50 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<5.0.2.1.0.20001221094557.02b04e98@mail.register.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Scope [was Re: Expiration times]
At 10:06 AM 12/21/00 -0500, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote: >At 09:31 AM 12/21/2000 -0500, Geva Patz wrote: >>On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 07:39:13AM -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> > >> > Requirement 7.5-[1] already exists to ensure that the protocol allows for >> > registration of objects not explicitly specified in the draft, so I think >> > the second sentence is redundant. >> >>I'm not sure that I agree. 7.5-[1] states (sensibly) that "A:, >>generic registry-registrar protocol SHOULD provide features >>that at a minimum allow for the management of new object types >>without requiring revisions to the protocol itself". There's a >>subtle difference in sense between this, which basically suggests >>that the protocol be extensible, and my proposed rewording of >>3.4-[1], which suggests that the protocol should be designed from >>the outset to accommodate a broader range of identifiers than >>domain names (which the EPP proposal, for instance, does). I >>won't re-hash the reasons why we changed the name from `domreg' >>to `provreg', but I think it's important to capture those in the >>requirements. > >This is a valid point. At the same time, I think it's important to avoid >too much scope creep here too. <snip> Verisign has launched a testbed registry for ENUM type identifiers (www.enumworld.com). Scott, would the above proposed provision for a "broader range of identifiers" be one way to accommodate ENUM registry activity, or would 7.5-[1] be adequate? Bill Semich .NU Domain