To:
"Sheer El-Showk" <sheer@saraf.com>, "Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>
Cc:
"Patrick" <patrick@gandi.net>, "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Date:
Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:38:27 +0800
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]
Maybe I wasn't clear (*sigh* I got misunderstood a lot here), but I never objected to Scott's GRRP Requirements I-D as a starting group. So I make it in plain English: It is a good start. I am suggesting that a. Quite a lot of other domain names registries have not read it. b. It is probably still incomplete and need more work. -James Seng > If it is, then I am definately in agreement with the general sentiment. I > don't think we should leave domain name authority in the hands of the > registrars ... that's an implementation issue (ie per registry) and > should certainly not be enforced by the protocol. I don't think, however, > that this is enough ground to say that Scott's doc is a bad basis for a WG > (I havn't actually looked over the revised version enough to say whether I > like it or not).