To:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
cc:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, jaap@sidn.nl, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:34:20 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:23:22 PST." <Pine.LNX.4.33.0303170821080.811-100000@flash.ar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] thursday's meeting
>> Pointing out a specific defect in the <dcp> element's sub-schema would be >> really useful. > > The DCP proposal didn't address how a registrar can tell the registry > what can be disclosed. I believe it was the <dnd> proposal that did > allow this fine granularity of disclosure. We don't have a negociation mechanism, for anything. I don't mind adding one. Why is the scope of negociation limited to this however? Eric