RE: Call for agenda items for Minneapolis

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
> [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: Edward Lewis
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; brunner@nic-naa.net
> Subject: Re: Call for agenda items for Minneapolis 
> 
> 
> From the abstract:
> 
> > These two new parameters only apply to ... <a single domain 
> name registry>
> 
> and from the statement of intent:
> 
> > ... specify ...  extensions ... required ... interconnect  
> ... registry
> 
> The authors have created a registry-private extension, as other registries
> have for trademark data, and no doubt will continue to experiment with as
> the registry experience matures. Such things are properly in operational
> registry practices documents, or informational I-Ds, not requiring working
> group change control and process.

I have to agree with Eric.  I'd prefer that we spend meeting time on topics
of concern to the WG as a whole.

FWIW I _do_ have some pro bono commentary for the authors if they wish to
discuss the mechanics of the extensions in an offline exchange.  Hint: how
does a client learn of the existence of this extension, and how does the
client inform the server of intent to use the extension?

-Scott-