To:
"Marcel Schneider" <schneider@switch.ch>, "Paul George" <pgeorge@saraf.com>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Peter Mott" <peter@2day.com>
Date:
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:00:25 +1300
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<17311.979065525@smtp.switch.ch>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Charter last call summary
> If the registry is also acting in this intermediate function, > why should it use the rrp and why should we then distinguish > btw. front- and backend services ? Every TLD that has the same entity performing registry and registrar roles should consider using this protocol. If you ever want to move to a competitive registration model, you will need to give other registrars access to the registry as well as yourself. It would make such a transistion much cleaner and save you considerable development time. If you are sure the TLD will always offer a monopoly registrar service, then I guess using the rrp is less compelling. Regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2day.com -/-