RE: New I/D: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-0 0

Hi Scott!

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> <annoyance>
> It's customary to include an acknowledgements section, especially when much
> of the text is clearly copied from earlier work done by someone else.
> </annoyance>

Sorry about my "omission sin"!
I will add such an acknowledgements section in the next revision.

Yes, I took your draft [1] as a template; because IMHO it has an excellent 
structure for EPP extensions. This actually also proofs, that I trust your 
documents!

> [...] I'm not sure I understand how this can work without also using the 
> ENUM extension [1] I've been working on.

The both extensions work independently, as they address completely 
different problems. Your extension [1] is about providing NAPTR records 
(for the DNS), my proposal [2] about providing validation information, 
(e.g. to comply legal requirements).

> Wouldn't an <info> response, for example, also need to return the <info> 
> data described in my draft once the domain exists in the registry?

Only if the registry supports also your extension [1].

> At first glance I think there needs to be some text in your
> document explaining the relationship to my document.

As this is not required to understand my validation information
proposal [2], it is certainly useful to understand the differences
between [1] and [2]. I'll think of something appropriate for the next 
revision.

cheers,
  Bernie



References:

  [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-epp-e164-05.txt
  [2] http://ietf.hoeneisen.ch/draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-00.txt