[Crisp] Questions on revision status? for RFC 3982 dreg1 which does not validate

"Carl Taswell" <ctaswell@telegenetics.net> Sun, 27 January 2008 18:51 UTC

Return-path: <crisp-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJCbC-0002pT-E8; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:51:22 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJCbA-0002ov-Ng for crisp@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:51:21 -0500
Received: from dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com ([]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJCbA-0001u7-7T for crisp@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:51:20 -0500
Received: from ManRay ([]) by dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com (InterMail vM. 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20080127185117.QKXV21469.dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com@ManRay> for <crisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:51:17 -0500
From: Carl Taswell <ctaswell@telegenetics.net>
To: crisp@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:51:24 -0800
Organization: Global TeleGenetics, Inc.
Message-ID: <008a01c86115$9e494ab0$dadbe010$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AchhFZ1io9oTaOEIRfa9beVvuF42Fg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Subject: [Crisp] Questions on revision status? for RFC 3982 dreg1 which does not validate
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ctaswell@telegenetics.net
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org

Thanks again to all of you who have answered my previous questions and
contributed responses.

This inquiry regards solely the status of RFC 3982 and the fact that the
formal XML syntax for dreg1 does not validate. Specifically, XML validation
checkers return errors that map to lines beginning with the element

I understood that the errors in dreg1 would be corrected in dreg2 which was
under consideration most recently as draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg2-01.txt but
that draft has expired.

Moreover, the pilot project for implementation of an IRIS client and server
at Verisign apparently used a version of dreg2 that was not the same as the
draft dreg2-01 (when compared with a diff utility that identifies at least
several elements of difference) which further adds to the confusion
regarding the "correct" version, if any, for dreg as either dreg1 or dreg2.

So here are my questions:

(1) For active members of the CRISP WG, what is the current recommendation
for use of a corrected revision for dreg?

(2) For those who are implementing IRIS products/services, what version of
dreg will you be using? Or are you planning to implement dchk only, or
perhaps areg and ereg but not dreg?

Please note that in order to build my project on the foundation of existing
IRIS services, it is important for me to understand which services may be
available, and which standards will be actively supported. 

Thanks much,


Carl Taswell
Cel: 916-616-4939
Tel: 949-481-3121

Crisp mailing list