To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:08:13 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6033700F5@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Guidelines doc
At 20:13 -0500 10/27/02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> This document seems to border on being a guideline vs. a >> requirement document. > >It's supposed to be a guidelines document. Are you saying that it reads >more like a requirements document? If so, I could probably rephrase the way >the 2119 directives are used to make the focus more clear. Somewhat. I don't have the paper on me at the moment to cite what passage gave me that idea. (Try a search for "MUST" or "SHOULD". Telltale signs of requirements.) >> Section 2.3 >> >> Allowing a server to deny to a client access to an extension probably >> should migrate to the base spec. Would this impact the state diagram? > >I don't think so as it's all part of the <login> >authentication/authorization process. Okay, but my coinciveness is only about 85% right now. ;) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer