To:
"'janusz@libertyrms.info'" <janusz@libertyrms.info>
Cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:22 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal
> I think that unless something is really broken with <renew> > approach, rgp > syntax changes that may impact operating clients should be avoided. But: 1. We're talking about an Internet-Draft (meaning "implement at your own risk!"), and an individual submission that hasn't been commented on very broadly at that. 2. I think we need to come up with something that we can all implement the same way to maximize interoperability opportunities. Part of what I think is broken is that redemption should not necessarily require an implicit renewal. I prefer the idea of "redeem via update" and then "renew if necessary". That's two commands, but it's two commands that are doing very different things. If people are already doing RGP as an extended renewal, what are they doing about the renewal part of the command? -Scott-