Hi Jim,
On 06.04.2021 21:39, Gould, James wrote:
> Tobias,
>
>
>
> I have one more proposed change to the draft upon further review. For
> the <maint:impact> element, no impact to availability is not covered.
> My recommendation is to add support for the “none” value,
I do not think "none" is too useful in this context and could even cause
confusion. Shouldn't every system that is not included in the list
automatically be not affected?
What would be the consequence of having "none" there? In my opinion this
then requires the registry to list each system in every maintenance
notification. Otherwise one might wonder what is the difference between,
e.g.,
<maint:name>Whois</maint:name>
<maint:host>whois.registry.example</maint:host>
<maint:impact>none</maint:impact>
and just omitting the Whois entry.
I think in e-mails from the registry it can make sense to add something
like "DNS is not affected by our maintenance" to put the reading
registrar at ease, but in an automated notification I do not see the
value. If it's not mentioned, it's not affected.
Best regards,
Michael
--
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
44227 Dortmund
Germany
Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0
Fax: +49 231 9703-200
Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: michael.baul...@knipp.de
Software Development E-mail: michael.baul...@knipp.de
Register Court:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Chief Executive Officers:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
