To:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date:
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:45:07 +0100
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.33.0212090814370.1593-100000@flash.ar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.28i
Subject:
Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:39:19AM -0800, Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > it sounds like you are policy adverse and have a preconceived notion on > how Neulevel would handle the policy. Since your organization is lobbing > the USG for .kids.us I am sure you have been involved in some policy > development. On an IETF mailing list, people are supposed to stand for themselves, not for their company. Although this is wishful-thinking, in practice, nobody criticized Scott's proposal on the basis of Verisign policy or my remarks on the basis of AFNIC's policy. I suggest to continue that way. > What appears to be happening is that some registry operators are more > concerned about the inconvenience of "public service" than publishing and > ensuring accurate information within their data sets. > > Are you are advocating the publishing of inaccurate information as a BCP > as long as there is no way of knowing if the information is accurate or > not? And that adding a mechanism like last-verified-date would require > that some registry operators acknowledge that there is a problem? As shown in your diatribe, this is clearly a registry policy issue, outside of the scope of the WG.