To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:22:35 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:22:32 EDT." <DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D01877FDF@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-provreg-epp-02.txt
Scott, > You may want to consider defining application/epp+xml in an appendix, > based on the template of RFC 3023. Yup. The appendix to rfc3023 is sufficient motivation. > You want to change the use of SHALL to MUST. Uhh ... We need to check each one. > Also, this phrase "raw Unicode character sets" should be changed to "and > UTF-16". Note that based on the new specification of UTF-32, raw > Unicode character sets has a basically undefined meaning. It probably > is a good policy to limit exchanges to UTF-8. Yup. UTF-8 it is. > Finally, it would be nice to have an introductory section describing the > problem space that EPP is attacking and a quick overview of its purpose. > For example, see section 1.1 of RFC 2960. Yup. I'll put one (extension) in my child-of-xrp (beep, push, privacy) drafts, that I _really_ hope to post this week. Someone should do the core (tcp, poll) draft. Eric