[Ietf-not43] any more comments for the requirements

[Ted Hardie]

Rick,
	It's a little unclear to me what you're asking for.  Are you
asking that the language in the requirements draft that talks about
domains etc. reference the provreg documents, or you asking that we
require that protocol documents reference that language?  If it's the
former and there are specific cases where you feel that the language
does not match, a citation would be helpful to me and I'm sure to
others as well.
	Also, I'm not sure why language around status codes would fit
into this group.  The status codes themselves would not be shared
between the two protocols.  The whole range of <update> comands from
EPP will not exist in CRISP, to give a quick example, and the status
codes would thus not make sense in the CRISP context.  If you
can clarify the proposed requirement here, I'd appreciate it.
			thanks,
				Ted



> 
> 
> I have a requirement I would like to see in your next draft.
> 
> Object Terminology, words that talk about domains, contacts etc, and
> status codes will be derived from the EPP Protocol Documents.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> -rick
> 
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Andrew Newton wrote:
> 
> > I'm looking to turn around another revision of the requirements draft.
> > Are there any more comments on it?
> >
> > -andy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-not43 mailing list
> > Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> > http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
>