Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:02:34 -0500

> >Does ((dnp==1 at .nl) == (dnp==1 at .com)) semantically 
> evaluate to 1, or 0?
> 
> The answer to this is a determining factor (to me at least) of 
> whether $dnp is in the base specification or in an extension.

As far as .com is concerned, I have no doubt that an extension will be
required even if we were to adopt the IESG's element tagging suggestion.
That being the case, my preference would be to put _all_ of the DNP syntax
and semantics into an extension (where the problem can be addressed as a
whole) while making the existing DCP element mandatory if that resolves the
privacy issue with the IESG.

-Scott-

---

From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:50:28 -0500

--On Monday, March 03, 2003 1:02 PM -0500 "Hollenbeck, Scott" 
<[email-masked]> mentioned that:

> whole) while making the existing DCP element mandatory

We'd be happy with that as well.

regards,

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an 
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/

---

From: "Michael Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:10:10 -0500

Likewise, we are also happy with that approach.

Michael Young 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: March 3, 2003 1:50 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'Edward Lewis'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish
registry

--On Monday, March 03, 2003 1:02 PM -0500 "Hollenbeck, Scott" 
<[email-masked]> mentioned that:

> That being the case, my preference would be to put _all_ of the DNP 
> syntax and semantics into an extension (where the problem can be 
> addressed as a

regards,

                       -rwr

---

From: janusz sienkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:42:32 -0500

> privacy issue with the IESG.

Making existing DCP element mandatory and dealing with other specific privacy
requirements within extensions looks to me like a better way of addressing
privacy issues in EPP protocol than mandatory, binary DNP attribute.

> -Scott-

Janusz Sienkiewicz