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

To: "'Joe Abley'" <jabley@isc.org>
Cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:01:16 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] References for Today's Host Object Discussion

> I wonder whether it might be reasonable to accommodate the 
> non-host-object case in the current spec before it is shipped for 
> proposed standard. This doesn't seem like it would be a major 
> change to 
> the text, and the impact on existing implementations seems 
> small (zero, 
> maybe) considering that the spec would not change for 
> registries which 
> choose to include host objects.

I'm not one of the people responsible for determining consensus, but I can
say that the domain document has completed both WG and IETF last calls with
the currently specified feature set.  Our chairs can, of course, direct me
to change something if WG consensus is to make a change.  I'd prefer to keep
things as-is, though, because this is _not_ a new argument and we'll have a
chance to address this again when considering what to do when going from
proposed to draft.

One of the things I intend to do once we're there is capture the outstanding
issues in an I-D that can be used to seed the proposed-to-draft discussion.
It would be helpful if people who have issues with any current features
could send me a note (off-list is OK) describing what they don't like _and_
a suggested solution.  We might then have the start of a pretty good problem
statement for EPP 1.1 or 2.0.


Home | Date list | Subject list