To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
cc:
"Paul George" <pgeorge@saraf.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Marcel Schneider <schneider@switch.ch>
Date:
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:05:10 +0100
Content-ID:
<20349.979142710.1@smtp.switch.ch>
In-reply-to:
Message from Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com> of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:35:17 -0500." <v0313030cb68221546fdb@[10.33.10.145]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Charter last call summary
On Wednesday, 10 Jan 2001, Edward Lewis writes: > At 4:04 AM -0500 1/10/01, Marcel Schneider wrote: >>As Peter said: this is common ICANN/gTLD usage. We are well >>aware of it :). > Others have used the terminology too. (It is certainly what I am familiar > with, and I haven't been woking with ICANN.) I would think that any > entity/agent that is entering data into a registry could be said to be > acting as a registrar, even if the entity isn't otherwise known as one. A registrar is tied to a) a dumb registry system and b) a thin registry data base. The registrar is performing policy checking. Unfortunately all of this does not apply to how most ccTLD's operate now. So imagine a registrar applying for domain names in both gTLD and ccTLD registries. If we apply the same nomenclature the registrar will be sure everything is identical. > Recall too that this protocol is designed for the case that the (entity > acting like a) registry and the (entity acting like a) registrar are > separated by a network. I am aware of this. I see no reason why it should be used for a single 'monotlithic' registry-registrar organization. > If there is no separation, this protocol may not > apply to the situation. Sure. > There will be no mandate from the IETF that this > protocol be used in registration. Such a mandate may come from a registrar > accrediting organization, but the IETF process can't be contingent on that. The registry-registrar protocol we are designing now will IMO become a de facto standard. We (SWITCH) have an XML interface which is designed for that purpose but I'm personally already convinced that we will have to resort to the new rrp asap. http://www.nic.ch/batch/ for those interested. >>Sorry for not answering quicker but we had a night in between >>in Switzerland :). > I suspected as much, but I feel we need to get the IETF process moving along. Right. Please move on. > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Edward Lewis NAI Labs > Phone: +1 443-259-2352 Email: lewis@tislabs.com > Dilbert is an optimist. > Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer. Marcel