To:
Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>
cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:18:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<20021206160203.63973.qmail@web14301.mail.yahoo.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Hong Liu wrote:
> I concur with Scott's observation. I would say that
> extension seems to be the way to go for lastVerified.
Hong,
My proposal was to have the follwoing XML in the contact-1.0.xsd:
<complexType name="infDataType">
...
<element name="lvDate" type="dateTime" minOccurs="0"/>
...
</complexType>
You have advocated an extention. prposal is as complex as the "fax"
element. Registries can express this critical value that many
organizations are asking for or they may not.
Why do you prefer to add the burdon of an extention whic is much more
vobers, requireing name space negoiation by the server and extion
libraries for the client to address this ICANN and IESG issue?
-rick