To:
"Mike Lampson" <lampson@iaregistry.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Cc:
<Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>
From:
"Peter Mott" <peter@2day.com>
Date:
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:14:05 +1300
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<083b01c07699$09ad4c80$5591a6a5@IS.INFOAVE.NET>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Definition of Registry
> (draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-05.txt). Everyone should review this document > and look at the requirements related to both "thin" and "thick" registry > models. I was talking more about roles and relationships between players rather than where the data is stored. It appears the author of the draft has reasonably chosen the current gTLD relationship model as the basis for the protocol design. This may be a reasonable thing to do. From a ccTLD perspective, I favour a different approach. > As for content management, I believe it should be beyond the scope of this > working group to determine the validity of the data. Policies > made by each > Registry are going to determine who checks the data and even how much > checking is done. This is clearly the case in the model being proposed. If it were me, I would not have the registry even thinking about such things! Regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2day.com -/-