To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'Patrick'" <patrick@gandi.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Sat, 22 Sep 2001 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FA8B@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: <check> Response Attribute
Scott, I think it would be helpfull if unavailable could return a reason. -rick On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick [mailto:patrick@gandi.net] > > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 10:28 AM > > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > > Subject: Re: <check> Response Attribute > > > > > > So the information about why it can not be registered is still > > useful. > > I think Dan Manley suggested this as well. OK, if multiple people feel it > would be helpful to provide both a yes/no response and some sort of > rationale if the answer is "no", should we attempt to enumerate the reasons > for "no" or should we consider free-form (aka server-defined, with some > defined maximum length) text to describe the rationale? > > <Scott/> >