To:
"'Michael Graff'" <Michael_Graff@isc.org>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:15:32 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: "ok" status on domains (and other objects)
> Quick question: > > The "ok" status is server-managed, and is said that it cannot > occur with > other statuses. Does this mean it is implicitly removed when a client > attempts to set any status, like clientHold, and will return > implicitly > when no other status values are set? If so, can the protocol draft > explicitly state this? > > Having it be implicit seems like an implementation choice. I would > rather see it removed explicitly, or go away all together, > which means an > object without any status is automatically "ok". We need to understand something: the protocol documents have almost completed IESG review. I don't have a lot of liberty in making changes to documents that have completed both WG and IETF-wide last calls (other than dealing with editorial issues) unless _serious_ issues are discovered. In my mind, _serious_ means that a large number of WG participants agree that something needs to be changed _now_ and the chairs declare that we have consensus on the need for such a change. The answer to your first question is "yes". I will _try_ to deal with wordsmithing the text to more fully explain that the default "ok" status is set and unset as a result of other explicit status-setting operations. I'm not open to the idea of changing status behavior unless we enter into the _serious_ issue state as described above. -Scott-