To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:10:30 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Proposed Document Changes
The message was orinally sent from another account so I have to send it again.
To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.info>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:30:23 -0400
Subject: RE: Proposed Document ChangesI would like to say a few words in defence of <status> command. Unlike some other participants of the thread I see value in retaining the command. It was said in the discussion that transform commands can be resubmitted or their results can be determined by <info> command. Retransmitting some commands could be risky (let's take <renew> for example). Using <info> command to determine the state of the object may not be easy. If a registrar enforces uniquenes of clTRID <status> command provides a convenient way of handling failure situations. Regards, Janusz