To:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
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:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:34:32 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<059701c085bf$13f8e3e0$06272dd4@jamessonyvaio>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
At 11:35 PM -0500 1/23/01, James Seng/Personal wrote: >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. Perhaps you should review the charter proposed for this group. (It's in the archive, I can send you a copy off-list if you want.) The charter is written to say that the results of the WG would be a generic protocol for registration information (domain names, IP addresses, etc.) but with a short term emphasis on domain names. >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. This is a "historical accident." The drafts leading up to the BOF were produced by Verisign, and although input was sought, none was forthcoming (again, prior to the BOF). Post-BOF, there have been lively discussions on the mailing list, with input coming from a number of ccTLDs and ICANN gTLDs. We are progressing on a requirements document that is intended to be the consensus of the group, not restricted to the original document as submitted by Verisign. The latest draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06.txt As we are not a WG yet, it is listed as an individual submission - that of Scott Hollenbenck, a memeber of Verisign. To help reduce bias in the final result, the co-chairs (myself and Jaap Akerhuis) work for a non-registr* company and a ccTLD company respectively. >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. Comments and additional text for the requirements document are welcome. I am hoping for an always wider field of input. >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. This is why this WG is under consideration - to avoid that "nightmare." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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.