To:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:56:19 +0200
Authentication-Results:
ams-dkim-1; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
DKIM-Signature:
v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1059; t=1238691771; x=1239555771;c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002;h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com;z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20<paf@cisco.com>|Subject:=20Re=3A=20RFC=204310=20RE=3A=20[ietf-provreg]=20RE=3A=20Standards=20Track=20Advancement=20Request=20for=20EPP=20RFCs|Sender:=20;bh=euIeQP3wXV+ugRgaNHi9yqlBkH8UV+/5d0aXStP6Si0=;b=X25EKpjAS/p0J4oJL6M27rvPHLesgHUzxxODZqTTMH9BzHDFIbG/RlpjazWB2eDTXNy/RY5kSiVqnCISZsAIccbChvG21AQmnrlgwNDaXhM1aDCgnxnzWWAvOdZH/26n;
In-Reply-To:
<a06240801c5fa7aff6ff7@[10.31.200.209]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: RFC 4310 RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
On 2 apr 2009, at 16.27, Edward Lewis wrote:
> FWIW, we found that RFC 4310 in it's current state to be quirky but
> workable.
>
> I would prefer that we not redefine what's in 4310, although if we
> want to improve on it we create a new extension (which has less
> quirks).
I agree with this.
The only thing I ask for is maybe some more words so that the reader
catches the quirks.
Patrik
This is a digitally signed message part