RE: RE: comments on your grrp-reqs-05.txt (second try)

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

True, but that's also why we have list archives!

Ed and I talked about this recently, and truth be told I can publish a new
version of the requirements draft that reflects agreed-to changes in very
short order.  Ed asked if the next version of the draft could include a name
change to reflect our move to WG status, and I agreed to proceed that way.
The WG doesn't yet exist, though, so I can't publish the draft with a WG
name quite yet.

I don't mind pushing out one more individual submission version before we
move it to a WG version if that would help.  Let me see how Ed and Jaap
would like to proceed.

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Sanz/Denic [mailto:sanz@denic.de]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:58 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: RE: comments on your grrp-reqs-05.txt (second try)


On 10.01.01 14:37 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:
> We earlier discussed bagging this requirement completely because it
> describes registry implementation detail.  I'd prefer to delete it than
> reword it.

It might be useful if a draft is posted with all agreed changes up to now,
before we start wasting time by looping over the same issues again and
again.

Marcos Sanz