To:
"Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>
cc:
"Asbjorn Mikkelsen" <asteira@gnr.com>, "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>
Date:
Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:42:54 +0200
In-reply-to:
Your message of Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:48:17 -0500. <00da01c2f530$b178bb30$0f01a8c0@neteka.inc>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: side bar, was Re: [ietf-provreg] Our "Privacy Issue"
> On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 03:10, Ram Mohan wrote:
> > Last time I checked, at least half a dozen registries are running EPP
> > operationally. .INFO (02); .ORG(07), .BIZ(04), .US(04?), .AU(05),
> > .NL(?)plus a bunch more ccTLDs.
>
> ...and .NAME(05)...
>
...and .SG(04) and soon to be .BZ(04 or 07)
To be (IETF) polical correct, the last time I checked, there was no
EPP at all. Note that the IETF discourages the use of dratfs in any
form. See attached scitation from RFC 2026. So, at best one can
talk about "by the IETF provreg-WG insprired" protocol.
And for good order, .NL is not using anything which remotely
looks like EPP.
jaap
RFC 2026, section 2.6
An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are
subject to change or removal at any time.
********************************************************
* *
* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *
* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *
* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
* with an Internet-Draft. *
* *
********************************************************