To:
"'Jaap Akkerhuis'" <jaap@sidn.nl>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Cc:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, Ietf-Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:57:24 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Why Interim Meetings?
Jaap, The VeriSign gTLD registry is one. While we're functioning with the existing NSI RRP, there are needed improvements and additional capabilities that require use of a new protocol. <Scott/> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap Akkerhuis [mailto:jaap@sidn.nl] > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 5:22 AM > To: Dave Crocker > Cc: Edward Lewis; Ietf-Provreg > Subject: Re: Why Interim Meetings? > > > > Let me help: Some registries need the specification yesterday. > > I heard this claim before, can you provide some details about this? > Which registries need this yesterday. It seems that a lot of the > existing TLD's are still able to cope without this. > > jaap