Re: Merging RRP and Whois

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

James,

Extensibility of schema(s) is a given, in fact, the idea of an
inextensible protocol using XML is sort of funny. Unity is not
a given, not merely due the differences in schemas, as one AD
noted, the process models are not equivalent.

Registration in arbitrary object identifier schemes which may share a
property of hierarchical delegation is a fruitful field of research.
To be fair, the same observation applies to self-labeled data and to
labeled flows, which may share the properties of registrant data schemas.

I don't expect an IETF WG charter to be quite that broad however, for
either value of abstraction to the point of ... well, absurdity.
(Again, to be fair, an IRTF WG charter is another matter, e.g., for
labeled flows)

Neither RRP nor Whois emerged from San Diego BoF with charters, and
I haven't seen an announcement on ietf-announce concerning either,
so I guess there is nothing wrong with your advocating a particular
scoping, nor with George advocating merging, or Karl advocating ident
and/or authorization over privacy, or out-calls to policy mavens.

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