Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 17 September 2010 21:44 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 329DD3A6875 for <port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037,
BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wyNt9PYUEizY for
<port-srv-reg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B023A68C5 for <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>;
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.217.198.68] (68.sub-75-217-198.myvzw.com [75.217.198.68])
(authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
o8HLiHs5027390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C93E131.4040206@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:44:17 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>
References: <C8B92E0A.28C17%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <C8B92E0A.28C17%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "port-srv-reg@ietf.org" <port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go
X-BeenThere: port-srv-reg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of updates to service name and transport protocol port
registry <port-srv-reg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>,
<mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/port-srv-reg>
List-Post: <mailto:port-srv-reg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg>,
<mailto:port-srv-reg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:44:52 -0000
On 9/17/2010 2:39 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote: > nges you made to the admin contact/tech contact use as I’m not sure I > will agree with them. > I had a conversation with Russ Housley today about that language as we > are going to be using it in other registries. > > I’ll get feedback to you all by Monday. AOK - whatever we use, needs to be consistent throughout (the current text had registrant/contact, but then later had admin/tech contact) I am also concerned about a name for the process - whether it's "registration" or "assignment". I prefer the latter. Joe
- [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Michelle Cotton
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Lars Eggert
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Joe Touch
- Re: [port-srv-reg] almost good to go Lars Eggert