Re: Defenition of Registry

[Marcel Schneider <schneider@switch.ch>]

On Wednesday, 3 Jan 2001, "Alf Hansen" writes:

>> 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.

But there is no need for that. The responsiblity for the 
content can be waived by the registry and put upon the
registrars. There are different 'schools' of thinking
in this respect.

But an efficient registry cannot be responsible for content, 
simply because it will not be able to handle large workloads
and there are other reasons:

* it will be required to run cheap, because registrars want
  low prices and/or high margins
* duplication of policy checking should be avoided
* any policy checking can be performed by the front
  end, speak regisrars/agents (they may need some
  software for that) and this will result in better
  performance (*) and smoother handling (what happens if
  the registry does not allow an application ? How
  much time will the agent have to wait ? What does he
  say to the applicant ? What happens to invoices ?

(*) If registrars perform according to the contract with
the registry !

> 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.

I think you already are in line with what I try to outline
above ...


Marcel