RE: Handling of External Host Objects

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

Yes, it was discussed.  No specific conclusions were reached other than we
need to continue discussion.

I tried to summarize the main points of your objection to the currently
documented approach, but I don't recall anyone in the room supporting the
change you've proposed.  Hence the need for more discussion.

If anyone else who was in the room heard it differently, please speak up.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hong Liu [mailto:lhongsms@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:29 AM
> To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> Subject: RE: Handling of External Host Objects
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Sorry that I could not be in Atlanta to discuss this
> topic in person. Was this issue discussed during the
> provreg WG session? Any conlusion on this topic?
> 
> I certainly have my personal view on this, but I would
> like to hear from your feedback first.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --Hong
> 
> --- "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
> wrote:
> > > To alleviate the problems mentioned above let me
> > propose the following
> > > changes
> > > to epp host and domain mapping documents:
> > 
> > If I understand this correctly you're suggesting a
> > move back to the way
> > things were (more or less, with some limits to
> > address the issues) before
> > the per-client thing came up, right?  I like the
> > idea of consistency and
> > simplicity -- what do others think?
> > 
> > -Scott-
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>