RE: Expiration times [was Re: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes]

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Sure, ensuring that things don't break for other types of objects is a Good
Thing.

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Global Registry Services

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@register.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:34 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
Subject: RE: Expiration times [was Re: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes]


At 12:05 PM 12/21/2000 -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Rather than try to enumerate all of the possible object types that might be
>registerable as suggested by Jordyn or generalizing 3.4-[1] as suggested by
>Geva (which I think would then be inconsistent with other specific object
>requirements in 3.4), I'd really prefer to add a requirement to section 7.5
>if people believe that 7.5-[1] talks more to protocol extensibility than
>object extensibility:

Just for clarity, I suggest we enumerate the types of objects we might like 
to register for sanity's sake, and not for inclusion into the requirements 
doc.  Then we can make sure that the requirements match.

Scott's suggestion that we add a statement at the global level about 
extensibility rather than making the object requirements overly generic is 
a good one, and I think the language he proposes is much more clear and 
understandable than a more generic discussion about alphanumeric strings 
with certain qualities.

Jordyn