To:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
cc:
Michael Graff <Michael_Graff@isc.org>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:37:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<a05111b11ba16dfd8af91@[192.149.252.235]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
> That's not an old topic - it's a current one...
>
> BTW - if there are folks unhappy with the declaration of consensus
> about last-verified, speak up. I've heard murmurs...
ahem...
In the atlanta wg I presented the element last-verified-date as optional,
as the "fax" element is optional in a contact elelemnt of a domain
registration.
I have reviewed the mail archives and the notes from the physical meeting
and there has only been two (2) requests for this element to be a
described in a extention once by Hong, and by Klaus There have been other
expressions of support on the list such as
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-11/msg00047.html
The notes of the physical meeting clearly state the issue about the
element being optional...
EL: OK. On the mailing list, the last message on this talked about this
being
optional. Not everyone agreed that all registries. So this is the
question i
am most interested in. Should it be optional?
RW: From the comments i have received it makes the most sense.
JP: It doesn't seem to make any sense to make it mandatory. There are
all kinds of
bad things about iut.
SH: I agree, it seems appropriate. The last comment was more strong
that it should
not be in the base, but i agree with RW on this.
RS: Ditto.
EL: We have documents in from of the IESG and I am not sure if we
want to make a
change at this stage.
RW: The IESG knows about this.
an optional element is very diferent than an extention and the term
extention was never presented, raised, or recomended durring the physical
meeting.
best,
-rick