[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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.


Home | Date list | Subject list