Re: Merging RRP and Whois

[George Belotsky <george@register.com>]

It very important to keep in mind that a _protocol_ is being created
here.

A protocol's usefulness and longevity is dependent on how it adapts to
future situations.  Just solving today's immediate problem is not
enough.

Even with the assumption that everyone agrees to adopt the new
protocol, the 'nightmare' scenario will nevertheless occur if
multiple other protocols have to be developed to support the operation
of the registered object repositories.

There is a need to provide a consistent interface for registering,
maintaining and viewing various entities.  It is a historical accident
that domain names are the first entity that requires this.  We are
indeed fortunate that many decisions about future uses do not need to
be made right away.  It is vital, however, that some thought be given
to extensibility now, if the resulting protocol is to have longevity.

There can be little doubt that a unified entity registration, view,
search, etc. layer will eventually emerge.  This layer will handle
domain name registration, whois-like lookups, registration of other
objects, etc.  The alternative is a different protocol for
registration of each object type , and a different protocol for
whois-like lookups of objects of each type, etc., etc.  Clearly a
nightmare -- and enough people will eventually wake up.

Our choice today is whether the protocol being developed here can
evolve into the unified layer described above.  If it can, then indeed
this group will have done a great service to the Internet community.
If it cannot, then we will all have to suffer yet another painful
round of fragmentation, incompatibility, obsolescence and
deprecation.  


On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
-----------------------------
George Belotsky
Senior Software Architect
Register.com, inc.
george@register.com
212-798-9127 (phone)
212-798-9876 (fax)