To:
"'Paul M. Kane'" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:16:57 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Draft provreg charter
Paul, I'm certainly not advocating any particular solution that (to use your example) requires X.509 certificates. As I've said on this list before, I believe that the best solution is a simple protocol with other protocol layers that address the needs (such as transport or security) of different operating environments. Scott Hollenbeck VeriSign Global Registry Services -----Original Message----- From: Paul M. Kane [mailto:Paul.Kane@REACTO.com] Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:36 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: Draft provreg charter Hi Scott and all As with much in this world ...technology is not the main issue but the political environment in which technology may be employed.... Putting on my Registrars NC Rep's "hat" the desire to have a standard interface to gTLDs is well overdue and most welcome. We need to ensure that the proposed new TLDs can be introduces in a stable and efficient manner (as quickly as possible). One issue I have is the scope and ramifications of adopting certain technologies which certain governments are keen to control... cryptography, international personal data exchange... etc. Thus it is a registrars legal ability to adopt certain technologies that could confine/restrict their business activity as registrars and .... So may I suggest inorder to progress the RRP protocol, the obligation for Registrars/Registries to adopt the "standard" RRP (resulting from this process) is not to the exclusion of other "less regulated" technologies/requirements. Continuing that theme (and putting on a ccTLD "hat") may I suggest that your work should not impinge upon the right/ability of a ccTLD registry to best serve the local internet community, and if that means using email templates as the best means of communicating with a ccTLD registry ...so it should be without any pressures to adopt more "real-time" registry/registrar protocols..... i.e. soften the "ccTLD" registry approach to avoid "push-back". In some of the ccTLD registry systems we administer, the use of x509 certificates are not allowed in certain jurisdictions, so we use either secure tunnel (for real-time interface) or PGP encrypted email. I am on vacation at the moment and thus not able to particiapte/respond to emails etc, Happy New Year to all..... Paul