Re: Exentisibility in the requirements

[George Belotsky <george@register.com>]

Actually, it is quite clear that provreg is quite broad in capability.

This is why merging the Whois functionality into the RRP would work so
well.  Whois will eventually need more features, while the RRP has
methods to accomplish Whois-type queries (one does need to just look
at the registered objects).  Both the Whois and RRP must reference the
same objects in any case: the RRP at a very high privilege, and the
Whois at the lowest possible privilege.



On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:55:09PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> With this talk about merging provreg and whois, it seems to me that some
> folks have gotten the impression that provreg is limited to domain names.
> Provreg is looking at domain names in the near term with an eye towards
> other data types in the future.  That is what the charter says.
> 
> Perhaps the current requirements document does not reflect this.  The
> current requirements document is focused at domain names because of the
> near-term effort.  Perhaps the requirements need to strenghten the notion
> that the protocol must be extensible.
> 
> I would enourage anyone who feels that the requirements document is too
> domain- name-centric submit comments and words to reflect that domain names
> are just a current focus, more work is to follow.  I don't want to bog the
> requirements document in discussion of other data types but rather strongly
> recognize that other data types will be considered in the future.
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 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)