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 14:42:59 -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 2:39 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' > Subject: Re: <check> Response Attribute > > > I prefer the kludge. It has the advantage of being extensible. > > Did you have some other motivation than simplification for the sake > of consistency? No, no other motivation. I prefer to call a boolean a boolean because other booleans elsewhere in the protocol are defined as such. It's that consistency thing again. Given that the <check> command is documented to produce binary results at a minimum (with additional info possibly included via the extension mechanism), it sounds like you're suggesting that we modify the definition of binary. <Scott/>