To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Richard Shockey <rich.shockey@neustar.com>
Date:
Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:46:29 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D7503FA@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: One additional requirement...
At 08:44 AM 1/2/2001 -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >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 Thats fine .... we dont need to flog the the issue. >-----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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<