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

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:27:09 -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

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:26:41 +0000

> of the text is clearly copied from earlier work done by someone else.

I know how you feel. Leslie just got a variation on my ":43 considered obsolete"
to RFC, without a single ack.

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:20:39 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Scott!

> of the text is clearly copied from earlier work done by someone else.

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

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