To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:04:03 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07C92A4A@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:27:56PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> NEW:
> Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an action on
> an object that did not directly execute the action. For example,
> <transfer> actions can 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.
I like this, myself. Do we want to make the "can"s in there SHOULDs
instead? (I don't, really, but this is a pretty dramatic weakening
from the MUST we had before. Looking at the archives, there seem to
have been some people arguing for a much more important poll queue.)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x4110