RE: action items from our meeting in atlanta

[Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>]

Scott,

Please see my comments below. Cheers,

--Hong

--- "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
wrote:
> > (1) handling of external host
> > (2) handling of last-verified
> > 
> > I would like to see a closure on each one.
> 
> Janusz's proposal [1] has had some support with no
> negative push-back so
> far.  Does it work for everyone?
> 
On a high level, Janusz's proposal seems fine with me.
I would like to see the actual texts in the spec and
check for consistency when they become available.

> The overwhelming feeling of the room in Atlanta was
> that the lastVerified
> element could be added as an optional contact
> element.  If you disagree,
> maybe we need a chair measurement of rough
> consensus.
> 
Not being in Atlanta in person, I am not in the
position to judge the feeling in the room. By reading
the draft meeting minutes, I did not get a sense of
the feeling for making lastVerified optional as
overwhelming. What I saw was that people did not want
it to be mandatory. But that does not automatically
translate into making it optional. There is a third
alternative: making it as an extension.

If I understand correctly, IETF WG decisions are made
via the mailing list. I would like the co-chairs to
poll on the list on this issue: optional vs.
extension. I will leave it to our co-chairs to
formulate the question to the list. So far, at least
two people on the list are for extension, _and_ gave
good reasons for why, -:) [1]. I am for it to be an
extension. I will reiterate my reasoning once the
co-chairs poll the list.

[1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-11/msg00064.html

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com