To:
"Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Richard Shockey <rich.shockey@neustar.com>
Date:
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:52:34 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<5.0.2.1.0.20001221122625.02b4d170@mail.register.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Expiration times [was Re: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes]
At 12:34 PM 12/21/2000 -0500, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote: >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. Works for me... >Jordyn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Technical Industry Liaison NeuStar Inc. 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 550, Washington DC. 20005 Voice: 202.533.2811, Cell : 314.503.0640, Fax: 815.333.1237 <mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or <mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.com> <http://www.neustar.com> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<