To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>
Date:
Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:32:57 +0100
In-reply-to:
Your message of Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:57:46 -0500. <200303031957.h23JvktY080504@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry
Correct.
So there no semantic consequence to the registrar being, or not being,
"based within the European Union."
Not with respect of the privacy issues. That is under Dutch regulation,
as I have said before.
The registrar may (hypothetically) provision some datum to the .nl registry,
with some (equally hypothetical) binary toggle set to ZERO, or to ONE, with
out difference, independent of the registrar's location. Is this correct?
Yup, see above.
What contract?
Between registry and registrar.
Better still, if a registrar doesn't need to signal in-band it accepts
anything, then it doesn't need to even know whatever that useless thing
is.
You are twiting words. See my earlier response how this might work.
8.4 has a MUST in it, which appears to have no meaning at all if I
finally understand you. Everything is in the contract -- Scott's opening
position, that bilateral out-of-band mechanism (contract) covered the
requirement.
A MUST in a requirement document might work out differently in practice.
Well, you're a co-chair, so I guess we're finnished with
The protocol MUST provide services to identify data collection policies.
and are on to
"the proper element in the protocol which help to implement a policy"
Gosh this is such fun. Not.
I was not talking as co-chair.
jaap