To:
EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Date:
Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:19:54 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<C74BCE46.364C2%jgould@verisign.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>,EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] draft-gould-rfc4310bis-00.txt SubmittedforReview
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:13:10AM -0500, James Gould wrote: > Andrew, > > I thought about the concept of replace a little bit more, and I generally > agree that it¹s better to use the secDNS:rem for removals. I believe that > to fully support the concept of a set / replace with secDNS:chg that the > zero or more case should be supported. Limiting it to the one or more case > is kind of like creating a list that must have at least one element, which > doesn¹t sound like a very useful list. Well, my _real_ complaint is a data cleanliness/modelling issue. I hate having "no data" mean "null". Only SQL geeks really get excited about this sort of thing, however, and if others really want this I'm not really going to object, since I don't have to run any systems that use it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se