To:
"Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
"Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, "George Belotsky" <george@register.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <ietf-whois@imc.org>
From:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:35:23 +0800
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
Eric, Right. We are still probably doing scoping. However, I do want to remind everyone that if ProReg is nothing more than an improved SRS/RRP for ICANN-accredited registrar to Verisign, then IMHO we dont need this WG. SRS/RRP is so specific to Verisign design that I am not sure how useful it is to other Registries. If you are looking for an improved SRS/RRP, then Verisign can do it on their own with their registrars. In the same way, if result of this WG (if created), is not suitable for my absurd needs, I will move on design my own or modify it with my partners to suit our need. Other registries may refused to adopted SRS/RRP just because it is tailored to Verisign. I know quite a few Registries who has blantly refused to use it so as not to create an association altho there is no technical reason not to do so. Or they may use it and once again modify it to their own. Unfortunately, this means we end-up with variant of the basically same protocol but yet not exactly the same. That is interoperability nightmare. -James Seng > I'd like to keep the RRP-list scope closer to the SRS and RRP sense of > scope, and keep the post-port-43 scope specific to some port other than > 43, with a 43-like, but "improved", services. > > Eric