Re: Merging RRP and Whois

[George Belotsky <george@register.com>]

The assumption of a centralized store would be made at the 
protocol level.  The underlying implementation could well
be distributed.  Assuming a distributed database at the
protocol level would complicate the client.


On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
> % 
> % I have envisioned the following rough sequence of events/solution as
> % minimizing the required effort (by the ProvReg group and others) while
> % maximizing the achieved benefits.  I want to make this explicit, in
> % case some of the discussion here resulted because of confusion.
> % 
> %   1. The ProvReg group designs a protocol.  This protocol allows/assumes:
> %       * A centralized object repository (registry) is assumed.
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 
> --bill

-- 
-----------------------------
George Belotsky
Senior Software Architect
Register.com, inc.
george@register.com
212-798-9127 (phone)
212-798-9876 (fax)