To:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, Ietf-Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
William Tan <william.tan@i-dns.net>
Date:
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:50:04 +0800
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.30.0103200801470.32298-100000@loki.ar.com>; from wessorh@ar.com on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 08:06:05AM -0800
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: Pre-meeting notes
Perhaps what is more important is that if we feel that the base protocol is sufficient to support extensibility. Applying the protocol in other types of registration other than for domain names may require more than the currently proposed facilities in the protocol. wil. On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote: > Ed, > > > > 4) One of the issues raised in the drafting of the charter is > > extensibility. I feel that although the requirements document mentions > > this, extensibility isn't being addresses enough. Are there a few folks > > (say 2-3) that would be willing to be a "design team" to keep an eye on > > extensibilty? I'm looking towards the folks that most vocally supported > > the use of the protocol for not-just-DNS registrations. > > This is inaccurate IMNSHO. Scott has addressed extensibility in several > areas and several folks have made comments regarding various aspects of > extensibility resulting in imrpovements in the drafts. > > Unless you can be more specific about what has not been addressed in this > area I think we are ok. > > -rick > >