To:
"'Hollenbeck, Scott'" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date:
Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:40:20 +1000
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Push vs. not Push
Sounds fine to me. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:08 AM > To: 'Edward Lewis'; ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Cc: 'Jaap Akkerhuis' > Subject: RE: Push vs. not Push > > > From a gTLD registry operator perspective... > > We should have a set of MUST implement basic functions, > including a function > for exchange of operational notices. I would prefer a > polling mechanism in > the set of MUSTs. I would also like to suggest that it may > be possible to > define an optional push extension that may or may not be > transport-dependent. > > <Scott/> >