RE: Definition of Registry

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

RickW and I had a conversation about the role of definitions in this process
and other domain name related efforts in San Diego last month. We both
agreed that a common base of definitions will play an important role in
ensuring that whatever work this group and others accomplish is done in the
most efficient manner. As such, I took it upon myself to pen a draft (which
may or may not conform to IETF draft submission standards ;) that was
intended to act as a strawman towards defining a common set of definitions.

If it would be useful, I could clean it up and pass it back to this list in
short order. I do have a concern that this might be distracting to the
larger goal of this particular group. Perhaps if the definitions are
valuable yet the process of definition distractive, a separate effort on a
separate list geared towards hashing them out might be more efficient.

-rwr

<  -----Original Message-----
<  From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se]On
<  Behalf Of Alf Hansen
<  Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:22 PM
<  To: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
<  Subject: RE: Defenition of Registry
<
<
<  Scott,
<
<  > -----Original Message-----
<  > From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com]
<  > Sent: 3. januar 2001 15:59
<  > To: 'Alf.Hansen@uninett.no'; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
<  > Subject: RE: Defenition of Registry
<  >
<  >
<  > Alf,
<  >
<  > Could you clarify what you mean by "/responsible/ for the
<  content in the
<  > repository"?  I agree that a registry should be responsible
<  for database
<  > integrity etc., but are you suggesting that a registry should be
<  > responsible
<  > for maintaining (creates, updates, deletes, etc.)
<  registrar-provided data
<  > without direct authorization from a registrar (or acting as a registrar
<  > itself) as well?
<
<  No. The registry should be responsible for the content. The
<  registrars will
<  collect the data based on an agreement (contract) with the
<  registry, and the
<  registry should provide the registrars with the tools needed to
<  maintain the
<  database i a secure way: Proper authentication of the
<  registrars, limitation
<  of consequences after registrar-misbehaviour, logs enabling
<  investigation of
<  incidents, etc.
<
<  There will be a variety of "naming policies" for different TLDs. The
<  protocol must allow such flexibility in naming policies. The registry is
<  responsible for the content, and must therefore make sure that the
<  registrars also follow the rules (the actual naming policy) when they
<  maintain the database (on behalf of the registry). The protocol must be a
<  technical tool both for the registrars and the registry,
<  assisting them to
<  provide cost effective, high quality registration services to the
<  registrants (customers).
<
<  The protocol is not policy, but a technical tool.
<
<  >
<  > Scott Hollenbeck
<  > VeriSign Global Registry Services
<  >
<
<  Best regards,
<  Alf H
<  .NO
<