To:
"'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
"'Damaraju, Ayesha'" <ayesha.damaraju@neustar.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Wed, 16 May 2001 17:34:32 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Epp - Contacts
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 5:13 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: 'Damaraju, Ayesha'; ietf-provreg@cafax.se; brunner@nic-naa.net > Subject: Re: Epp - Contacts > [snip] > Unbounded seems kind of goofy, picking a bound is going to be > an exercise in > engineering arbitrariness, and 1 is just as arbitrary as 2 or > 0, though the > last has the same ordering properties as the first. The problem, though, is that the protocol can't be ambiguous in this regard. We have to specify one instance, a defined number of instances, or no upper bound on the number of instances. "multiple" doesn't narrow down the last two options precisely enough. <Scott/>