To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, tech@nic.fr
From:
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr>
Date:
Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:18:11 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<200104111330.f3BDUSD11154@nic-naa.net>; from brunner@nic-naa.net on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 09:30:28AM -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: comments on last draft
Eric, If I understand well what you say ( I'm not sure :), it is going for me to the right direction. > You are mistaken. There is a set of operations, each has a semantic and a > syntax that are (subject to correction) adequately specified. May I ask you where I can find the specs of this set of operations? olivier le mercredi 11 avril à 09 H 30 , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine a écrit : > [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