To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date:
Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:32:27 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07CFF7CF@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
At 9:23 -0400 8/29/05, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >OK, so how about this: > >OLD (section 2.9.2.3): >Service messages MUST be created for all clients affected by an action >on an object. For example, <transfer> actions MUST be reported to both >the client that requests an object transfer and the client that has the >authority to approve or reject the transfer request. > >NEW: >Service messages SHOULD be created for passive clients affected by an >action on an object. Service messages MAY also be created for active >clients that request an action on an object, though such messages MUST >NOT replace the normal protocol response to the request. For example, ><transfer> actions SHOULD 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. Looks good to me...(I see the next version is out, so maybe a "late" reply.) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.