IMHO since the DPS is the only public document , section 4.4 and its DR aspects
should be in the DPS to at least indicate to the public that these issues have
been considered.
4.8 ought to be there as an optional reminder for those writing such a
framework.
-Rick
> -Original Message
Op donderdag 14-10-2010 om 09:42 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Fredrik
Ljunggren:
> Antoin,
>
> Isn't the Zone Maintainer (DNS operator) really just a delegate of the
> registrant and not a separate role? The registrants should be in control of
> their domain name and responsible for managing th
Stephen,
Thanks for all your edits. I've implemented almost all of them. There are a few
remaining which I'd like to discuss with you, I'll send that to you privately.
And I'll make sure to submit a new version before Oct 25.
I do see your concerns regarding 4.8 (Legal Matters), and that this
Dear WG,
The (draft) agenda for IETF 79 (Beijing) gives us a two-hour slot late Thursday
afternoon:
Date: Thursday 11 November 2010
Time: 17:40 - 19:40 (UTC + 08:00) // mext, pcp, sipcore, karp, pce, fecframe
Please let Peter and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda.
Also, pl
Antoin,
Isn't the Zone Maintainer (DNS operator) really just a delegate of the
registrant and not a separate role? The registrants should be in control of
their domain name and responsible for managing the keys.
However, many (but certainly not all) may delegate or outsource the function of
o
