To:
"Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>
cc:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <jaap@tislabs.com>
From:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<a05100c22b7d698ebe75e@[192.168.2.116]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: <check> Response Attribute
Jordyn, If the name is available then yes is the only answer, if the domains is not available or MAYBE availabe then no is the appropiate answer. -rick On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote: > 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 >