To:
"'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:02:34 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry
> >Does ((dnp==1 at .nl) == (dnp==1 at .com)) semantically > evaluate to 1, or 0? > > The answer to this is a determining factor (to me at least) of > whether $dnp is in the base specification or in an extension. As far as .com is concerned, I have no doubt that an extension will be required even if we were to adopt the IESG's element tagging suggestion. That being the case, my preference would be to put _all_ of the DNP syntax and semantics into an extension (where the problem can be addressed as a whole) while making the existing DCP element mandatory if that resolves the privacy issue with the IESG. -Scott-