To:
"Martin Oldfield" <m@mail.tc>
Cc:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>, "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>
Date:
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:18:03 -0500
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<14974.63729.551543.889067@joanna.william.org>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]
| I think saying objects here is a great improvement. However, to be | pedantic if I wanted to set up a registry for pet registrations then I | wouldn't want it to include any domain names. | | Would it be possible to explicitly cast the thing in two halves: the | one is general and says `Protocol MUST support registration of objects | of multiple types'; the other is domain specific and says `The objects | supported must include domain names, nameservers, and domain | contacts'. You're correct, but I think there's a difference between the protocol specification and the capabilities of a given registry. That is: - The protocol MUST support registrations of domain name objects. - A particular server implementing the protocol MAY provide domain name registration services. Whatever else the thing does, it better do domain names. :-) -bws