Re: RFC 4310 RE: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2 apr 2009, at 16.27, Edward Lewis wrote:
> FWIW, we found that RFC 4310 in it's current state to be quirky but
> workable.
>
> I would prefer that we not redefine what's in 4310, although if we
> want to improve on it we create a new extension (which has less
> quirks).
I agree with this.
The only thing I ask for is maybe some more words so that the reader
catches the quirks.
Patrik
PGP.sig
(application/pgp-signature, 186 B) - not displayed