[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:19:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:12:59 EST." <DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D7505EB@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Definitions Merge

Scott,

There is at least one nuance which distinguishes a provreg definition of "foo"
from a whois defintion of "foo", one which you captured in the distinction
between "technical information" and "social information". The "thick vs thin"
model is distinguished by the distribution of "social information" only, and
this determines scope (end-points) for data flows for provreg.

In whois, there is no "technical information" (as whois makes no known use
of zone files), and I'm unclear if whois distinguishes between a registry
(global) and a registrar (local) provenance of data, nor the ordering of
entities between the query originator and the (eventual, not necessarily
unique) reply entity (or entities).

I don't mind a distinct definition-dump, I think we have at least one form
of "foo (depends who's answering, provreg or whois)" definition.

Eric

Home | Date list | Subject list