Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]

[Mike Lampson <lampson@iaregistry.com>]

> I am suggesting that
>
> a. Quite a lot of other domain names registries have not read it.
> b. It is probably still incomplete and need more work.

This is likely true.  However, do we care as long as we consider that:

1) It is only useful for Registries who want an API for Registrants,
Registrars or Resellers?  (Registries with only a single GUI and/or web page
interface won't care.)

2) It is truly extensible and enhancements can be added as these other
Registries seek to adopt a common data management model and discover
limitations in this interface?

I'm not saying we shouldn't build as much capability into this system from
day 1.  However, we should work with the specific requirements identified by
those with the most interest and need for a common protocol -- namely the
existing participants on this list.

By the way, keep YOUR comments coming.  Let's just make sure that this
process continues to move forward as quickly as possible.

Cheers,

_Mike
--
Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
(803) 802-6584

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
To: "Sheer El-Showk" <sheer@saraf.com>; "Brian W Spolarich"
<briansp@walid.com>
Cc: "Patrick" <patrick@gandi.net>; "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>;
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]


> Maybe I wasn't clear (*sigh* I got misunderstood a lot here), but I
> never objected to Scott's GRRP Requirements I-D as a starting group. So
> I make it in plain English: It is a good start.
>
> I am suggesting that
>
> a. Quite a lot of other domain names registries have not read it.
> b. It is probably still incomplete and need more work.
>
> -James Seng
>
> > If it is, then I am definately in agreement with the general
> sentiment.  I
> > don't think we should leave domain name authority in the hands of the
> > registrars ... that's an implementation issue (ie per registry) and
> > should certainly not be enforced by the protocol.  I don't think,
> however,
> > that this is enough ground to say that Scott's doc is a bad basis for
> a WG
> > (I havn't actually looked over the revised version enough to say
> whether I
> > like it or not).
>
>