To:
"'Richard Shockey'" <rich.shockey@neustar.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:44:43 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: One additional requirement...
Section 6.1 of the requirements draft addresses standards compliance. How about if I change 6.1-[1] from this: "[1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST conform to current IETF standards. Standards for domain and host name syntax, IP address syntax, and security are particularly relevant. Emerging standards for the Domain Name System MUST be considered as they approach maturity." to this: "[1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST conform to current IETF standards. Standards for domain and host name syntax, IP address syntax, security, and transport are particularly relevant. Emerging standards for the Domain Name System MUST be considered as they approach maturity." Scott Hollenbeck VeriSign Global Registry Services -----Original Message----- From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich.shockey@neustar.com] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 1:02 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: One additional requirement... IMHO we should be explicit in our requirements document that we invent no new transport protocols.