Subject: [Ietf-not43] Comments on CRISP Requirements draft-06 and CRIS P Internet Resour ce Number Requirements draft-00

From: rlehning at smimetlaw.com (Ryan Lehning)
Date: Wed Nov 12 09:34:27 2003

Rick,

If a "Last Verified Date" would be valuable, why isn't it included in the
Requirements document?  Do others have comments on whether there are better
ways of implementing the SECSAC recommendations than my proposal?

Thanks,

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:20 AM
To: Ryan Lehning; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] Comments on CRISP Requirements draft-06 and
CRIS P Internet Resour ce Number Requirements draft-00

Mr. Legal Professional:

no matter what the SECSAC said,  your proposal does not fit with the 
functional framework of the CRISP work. You can't say "well this works in
the 
US because we have verifiable zip codes" and ignore the 200+ countries that 
your proposal does not work in.

I continue to believe that a 'Last Verified Date' would be valuable to the 
community. Furthermore, I don't believe you have justified any of your 
proposal, or provided the requested examples from my last note, indicating 
that we may now safely ignore your proposal.

-rick

> Doesn't the SECSAC Whois recommendation call for exactly this sort of data
> element?
>
> 	"Whois data must contain a 'Last Verified Date' that reflects the
> last point in time at
> 	which the information was known to contain valid data.  It must also
> contain a reference to
> 	the data verification process."
> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac003.htm
>

---

From: anewton at ecotroph.net (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed Nov 12 10:08:41 2003

> ways of implementing the SECSAC recommendations than my proposal?

Yes.  Look at dreg.  I believe this covers the SECSAC recommendation (as 
described by Rick).

-andy