To:
"'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:09:36 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: <check> Response Attribute
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 11:17 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net > Subject: Re: <check> Response Attribute > > > Scott, > > You propose to restrict the type of <check> from an enumerated extensible > set (token) to a enumerated inextensible (boolean) set. No, I've suggested that we replace what has been a kludge for a boolean response with a true boolean response. > How do you propose we handle requirements for "reserved" domain names? The <check> command's purpose is to answer the question "does this object exist in the repository"; the answer to that question is binary. If a name has been registered the answer should be "yes". I don't know which/whose requirements you're referring to. If you're alluding to a specific server operator's need to return information beyond a yes/no response I'd propose use of the extension mechanism. <Scott/>