To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'enum@ietf.org'" <enum@ietf.org>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Bernie Hoeneisen <bhoeneis@switch.ch>
Date:
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:20:39 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To:
<5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF040D84E6@vsvapostal8.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] New I/D: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-00
Hi Scott! On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > <annoyance> > It's customary to include an acknowledgements section, especially when much > of the text is clearly copied from earlier work done by someone else. > </annoyance> Sorry about my "omission sin"! I will add such an acknowledgements section in the next revision. Yes, I took your draft [1] as a template; because IMHO it has an excellent structure for EPP extensions. This actually also proofs, that I trust your documents! > [...] I'm not sure I understand how this can work without also using the > ENUM extension [1] I've been working on. The both extensions work independently, as they address completely different problems. Your extension [1] is about providing NAPTR records (for the DNS), my proposal [2] about providing validation information, (e.g. to comply legal requirements). > Wouldn't an <info> response, for example, also need to return the <info> > data described in my draft once the domain exists in the registry? Only if the registry supports also your extension [1]. > At first glance I think there needs to be some text in your > document explaining the relationship to my document. As this is not required to understand my validation information proposal [2], it is certainly useful to understand the differences between [1] and [2]. I'll think of something appropriate for the next revision. cheers, Bernie References: [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-epp-e164-05.txt [2] http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-00.txt