Subject: [Enum] RE: [ietf-provreg] New I/D: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-0 0

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:35:43 -0400

> I am looking forward to your comments and proposals for improvement.

<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>

I'll review this in more detail when I have more time, but I'm not sure I
understand how this can work without also using the ENUM extension [1] I've
been working on.  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?  At first glance I think there needs to be some text in your
document explaining the relationship to my document.

-Scott-

[1]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-epp-e164-05.txt

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:06:22 -0400

Hi Scott, Bernie, folks,
  Hmm...

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:25:08 -0400

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