To:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
cc:
Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:53:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<a05111b0fba15d41f7acf@[66.44.62.225]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
> Think about client C and server S1 and server S2. S1 and S2 disagree > on last-verified date's meaning and usage. Is there a need to keep > the syntax the same? the semantics of last-verified-date is the same as those for other date elements that are published in other formats (whois/crisp) in the XML the last-verified-date uses the same "type" as created-date. I don't see a problem with a server interpeting this data. -rick