Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

[Michael Graff <Michael_Graff@isc.org>]

I hate to keep bringing up old topics, but I don't see how ROIDs can be
left in the draft as they are now, when something that is trivial to define
(last verified date) is an extension, but ROIDs are required and at least
two implementors have stood up and said they're problems.

--Michael

Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> writes:

> Let's go with the working assumption that last-verified will be
> defined as an extension.  (I.e., consensus says...)
> 
> The plan here is:
> 
> 1) An individual ID is worked on towards this end.
> 2) Although the mailing list is a fine place to talk about this, no ID
> on this topic is to be admitted until we get the base protocol to
> Proposed Standard.
> 3) We won't consider any milestones about this until we *consider*
> admitting the work.
> 
> ...I say this to keep us focused on getting the current set of
> documents to Proposed Standard, not to delay 'last-verified.'
> 
> At 8:02 -0800 12/6/02, Hong Liu wrote:
> >I concur with Scott's observation. I would say that
> >extension seems to be the way to go for lastVerified.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
> ARIN Research Engineer