Re: a question for the list
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 18 jan 2010, at 16.56, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Since I'm playing devil's advocate, however (and let me emphasise that > I'm pushing mostly because I think the best way to make a strong > argument is to find all its weak points and press on them), where were > these voices when the protocol was moving along the standards track? In short, I did rise my voice exactly like this, but the document moved forward, and I thought I was in the minority. I also explicitly then brought up the issue that exist that some policy issues are not well defined, for example on what a transfer (of a domain name) implies regarding sponsor of the contact object that is the holder of the domain. The conclusion then was that epp _as_defined_ was implemented as nice and clean and obviously works. The question now is whether we should do eppV2, so I think the questions are different. Or, that I was told ;-) Patrik -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to [email protected]