Re: Merging RRP and Whois

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

While I like the idea of having a collectives of distributed repository,
ie not centralized, in some cases, a centralized repository is
unavoidable.

I think what we need is a balance of both. A centralized repository is
probably very bad for scaling but you have control. A distributed
repositories infrastructure may scale but it is slightly chaotic.

Not all system needs to be centralized. A registry/directory for email
address for example can be distributed (and should be).

-James Seng

> Why is this assumption in place?
> One could (rightly) argue that the single largest cause of
> instability and scaleability is the insistance on using
> "A centralized ... repository".  The problems with that
> tactic caused the original IR to segment into multiple
> regional IRs, each retaining/maintaining "A centralized
> repository". Its gotten worse with the addition of each new
> "routing database" & whois service by agency.  Each presumes
> a single "centralized repository".
>
> I'd rather see a protocol to allow a composite, non authoritative
> structure be fabricated from collections of hundreds/thousands
> of broadly distributed attributes. That way I would own my
> data and be able to direct its distribution to/through others
> non-auth copies of my data.