To:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
cc:
"Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:13:51 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:43:02 +0800." <003701c086f6$46260ef0$32272dd4@jamessonyvaio>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
> If you are having a private conversation with Patrik then please do it
> offline.
See Message-Id: <p05100858b694cded21a1@[193.0.4.72]>
> If you post it to the list, then be prepare for disagreement,
> from anyone on the list.
We are discussing requirements. And doing so with some confusion (is
it whois:43 or whois:xx?) and some list overuse (provreg and whois).
Disagreement is useful, when it leads to correction, or at least the
discovery of error, or ambiguity.
> Your TODO list is only _part_ of the consideration. I am certain the
If you would cite or somehow motivate a requirement for a registry
protocol to provide access to 3rd-parties, regardless of the modality
of the operation (anonymous read vs write, etc.) it would assist my
understanding.
Which of the registrant, registrar, registry interests are augmented
by access via the provreg protocol of parties who are neither registrant,
registrar, nor registry? Some clearly are depricated, either by anonymous
3rd-party access, or by the (possible) delay in the standards process,
even if experimental, by mission creep in the specifications phase.
> group welcome your input but this does not mean the group are here to
> solve your problem only. (third time I am putting this down. please...do
> I have to do it 4th time?).
Sure.
> I am not going to disagree with your analysis here because that is true
> now.
Progress.
> And IMHO, there is no technical reason to forbid a registrant to access
> the registry directly
Please share your solution to the aaa problem, on one hand I've on the order
of 100 or 1,000 or so endpoints a registry, or any set of registries, must
authenticate, etc., and on the other hand I (or rather _you_) have got on
the order of 10,000,000 endpoints a registry, or ..., must authenticate, etc.
[necessity and sufficiency discussion, snip]
> Perhaps. Perhaps not.
As neither necessity nor sufficiency tests appear to get any more clear
than what looks like "don't know", the proponents of the claim haven't
made a case.
>> and key management. "Out of band" means by another mechanism.
> Great. I look forward to the day we repeat this all over again in some
> other WG formed to solve this "out of band" registration problem.
Iteration with selective scope is an alternative to single pass with unlimited
scope.
ietf-whois trimmed from the cc's.
Eric