To:
Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
cc:
George Belotsky <george@register.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, ietf-whois@imc.org
From:
Sheer El-Showk <sheer@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Date:
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:49:19 +0000 (WET)
In-Reply-To:
<200101261737.f0QHb3h12444@zed.isi.edu>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
> Now, having lambasted the idea of lumping whois into provreg, I've a goofy > idea. Can PROVREG recommend a scalable solution to the consideration of > NIC-HANDLES? To my knowledge, this has never been addressed properly, at > least since the days when the IR was split. When we did the RA project, the > thought was to tag the NIC-HANDLE with the registrars "stamp", e.g. > > WM110-NSI > WM110-RIPE > WM110-ARIN > > but this leads, as friend Bush commented at the RIPE-37 mtg, to inconsistancies > between registration agents. IN a nutshell, do we need globally unique IDs > to the registering agents? If so, who administers that ID space? Why would we want global NIC handles? Transfers? Data-consistency? Making life easier for the registrant? None of these seem sufficiently important to merit the kind of effort (either bureacratic -- if its one big NIC Handle registry; or technical -- if the registries used a shared/synced NIC Handle DB). Especially because registries may not want to share their NIC handles for various privacy or reasons. That having been said, what I like about an idea like this is it would make it simpler to determine who is authoritative owner of a domain - an issue I think we should really consider since it seems to be done mostly by "out-of-band" methods (email's sent by the registry -- at least Verisign -- to determine the domain owner) -- which I agree should be eliminated. Still I think a focus on digitally certifying a domain is the right way to go, rather than centralizing user information. Sheer