Subject: [Ietf-not43] 3.2.4 Domain Information Lookup

From: [email-masked] (Rick Wesson)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:45:52 -0800 (PST)

please add the following to the end of section 3.2.4

The domain information set MUST be able to express and represent arbitrary
information and extentions on a individual registry/registrar basis such
as license agreements, authorized use policies or extended status
notifications and/or marketing/for sale notices.

thanks,

-rick

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:21:57 -0500

> notifications and/or marketing/for sale notices.

I agree.  This is a commonly needed feature.

-andy

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:00:36 -0800 (PST)

Just how "arbitrary" do you intend to support?

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:04:18 -0500

Though I hadn't really thought of marketing/for-sale notices, I was 
thinking more along the lines of license and usage agreements and 
policies.  So it would be arbitrary non-structured text associated with 
the domain.  Other uses are outside the scope, such as wanting attach 
GIF images.

As it as been related to me, certain registries/registrars are bound by 
laws and policies that require them to publish license or usage notices 
when publishing this data.

-andy

---

From: [email-masked] (Ross Wm. Rader)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:25:37 -0500

> the domain.  Other uses are outside the scope, such as wanting attach

I'd prefer "arbitrary, structured" myself. Unstructured tends to get abused
in horrendous ways.

                       -rwr

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

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

---

From: [email-masked] (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:52:39 -0800 (PST)

> Just how "arbitrary" do you intend to support?

now thats a good question ;-) We could take a servey and try and pin those
down to a schema but then we would loose flexability and it wouldn't be
arbitrary anymore; infact "arbitrary" looses its capabilities once you
define it.

so, I understand your question but I cannot answer it.

-rick

---

From: [email-masked] (Rick Wesson)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:58:06 -0800 (PST)

> the domain.  Other uses are outside the scope, such as wanting attach

urls or uris should be a capability which may point to any kind of
resource. infact the unstructured part might have a mime-type so we can
understand what could be done with it, or how it may be processed.

> when publishing this data.

this is correct.

-rick

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:09:46 -0800 (PST)

> the domain.  Other uses are outside the scope, such as wanting attach 

Arbitrary length text/uris does make sense; I was getting at the
"attach a gif" (okay, "attach a flash animation") problem.  We need to
make sure that we don't end up re-creating a full mime transport.

> when publishing this data.

If you have a citation for that, adding it to the text with the new
requirements would be useful as background for the reader.
				regards,
						Ted Hardie

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:11:50 -0800 (PST)

> so, I understand your question but I cannot answer it.

Would a limit to text and URIs meet the needs you see?
				regards,
					Ted Hardie