Re: Merging RRP and Whois

[Martin Oldfield <m@mail.tc>]

>>>>> "George" == George Belotsky <george@register.com> writes:

-> snip <-

    George> In order to do so, it is very helpful to view the
    George> registration system as a number of object repositories
    George> (which may contain things other than domain names), with
    George> each repository being managed by a registry.  The object
    George> repositories should all support a single interface, which
    George> allows for a variety of users.  These include superusers
    George> (i.e. the registry performing maintenance) and privileged
    George> users (i.e. the registrars registering, modifying,
    George> deleting and transferring objects) as well as users with
    George> only moderate privileges (e.g. paid subscribers to an
    George> advanced Whois service) and minimally privileged users
    George> (i.e. users of the public Whois).

    George> If we start separating users into different privilege
    George> categories by writing a different protocol for each
    George> category, how many protocols will we end up with?
    George> Clearly, a single protocol is the most logical solution.

Quite so!

Presumably besides the notion of a general object registry, we would
also need to concoct standard definitions for e.g. a domain, a
contact, &c. ? If we don't do this then we'll lose interoperability to 
a proliferation of different domain definitions.

If we're going to embrace such diversity, then would it also be
prudent to let each registry publish details of the classes of objects
they store, and the access policies which apply to them ?

Cheers,
-- 
Martin Oldfield,
AdamsNames Ltd.