To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <jaap@sidn.nl>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:23:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<200303171616.h2HGGVGL011870@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] thursday's meeting
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> > > Our response to the IESG. The IESG wants "a standard (as
> > > in the base,
> > > core spec) means for a registrar to tell a registry what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > can be disclosed
> > > at fine granularity."
[snip]
> Pointing out a specific defect in the <dcp> element's sub-schema would be
> really useful.
The DCP proposal didn't address how a registrar can tell the registry
what can be disclosed. I believe it was the <dnd> proposal that did
allow this fine granularity of disclosure.
-rick