RE: Definitions Merge

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Yes, I agree.  Perhaps Ross' document should be renamed (and the definitions
adjusted) to make it less whois-centric, especially if it's being picked up
as a provreg WG document?

<Scott/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
[mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:19 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net
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