To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:04:03 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07C92A4A@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:27:56PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > NEW: > Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an action on > an object that did not directly execute the action. For example, > <transfer> actions can be reported to the client that has the authority > to approve or reject a transfer request. Other methods of server-client > action notification, such as offline reporting, are also possible and > are beyond the scope of this specification. I like this, myself. Do we want to make the "can"s in there SHOULDs instead? (I don't, really, but this is a pretty dramatic weakening from the MUST we had before. Looking at the archives, there seem to have been some people arguing for a much more important poll queue.) A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x4110