To:
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, tech@nic.fr, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:30:28 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:13:41 +0200." <20010411121341.A21676@james.nic.fr>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: comments on last draft
[snip] > >> >3.4.5 Object Transfer ... > It seems to me that allow the original sponsoring registrar to approve or > reject a requested object transfer is a policie question, not a technical You are mistaken. There is a set of operations, each has a semantic and a syntax that are (subject to correction) adequately specified. One operation (xfr) has an implicit order-of-events issue. Picking one is a technical necessity. If your policy requirement is not met, then you should be making the case that we should make xfr's implicit order-of-events explicit, and add a mechanism for operational selection of which order-of-events is to be used, allowing multiple-choice, hence allowing for operational selection of policy. Eric