To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Cc:
lewis@tislabs.com, jaap@tislabs.com
From:
"Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>
Date:
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:28:14 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<v03130301b7d642cdd5bf@[199.171.39.21]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: <check> Response Attribute
At 10:30 AM -0400 9/25/01, Edward Lewis wrote: >The rational behind #1 is that either a name is or is not available. >Although future extentions are always a consideration, extending the ><check> command is of questionable value. Not to make things too complicated, but what about when the status of a name is unknown (for example, if someone built an EPP frontend to a less automated system). Is this sort of scenario worth recognizing in the protocol design? I agree with the approach outlined by Ed in general, but some thought should go into whether or not "Maybe" should be an answer along with "Yes" and "No. Jordyn