To:
"'Herbert Vitzthum'" <herbert@vitzthum.at>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:28:32 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Object Registration
I think we've already covered changes to the draft to deal with expiration date (or no expiration date), but I disagree completely that requirements 3.4-[4] - 3.4-[10] are policy focused. I don't think we can get away from requiring the protocol to support name server and contact provisioning, though 3.4-[9] will be removed in the next revision. The name server requirements in particular exist because of DNS-driven considerations. If you disagree with some of the specific text that's in those requirements, please suggest alternative wording. </Scott> > -----Original Message----- > From: Herbert Vitzthum [mailto:herbert@vitzthum.at] > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 7:17 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: Object Registration > > Dear All, > > in the draft 3.4 Object Registration: > > [1] must also be endless as some ccTLDs have not an enddate in the contract. > > [4] to [10] This is policy and must no be considered in a technical protocol. The rfc for smtp also does not consider the content of an email. > > Best Regards > > Herbert