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


To: "Sheer El-Showk" <sheer@saraf.com>, "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <brunner@nic-naa.net>
From: "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 16:02:35 +0800
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Design teams

Eric,

Relax. No one is trying to take away your rice bowl so don't jump into
conclusion until you see my I-D, which will be something next week.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "Sheer El-Showk" <sheer@saraf.com>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>;
<brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Design teams


> Sheer,
>
> You may want to look at rfc2140 if the foundations for the motivation
for
> the change in connection management in http interest you.
>
> > which is generally the case in registry-registrar.  But as a
_generic_
> > registration protocol, whose to say I might not allow hundreds of
> > different clients to connection from different locations (without
going
> > through some front end registrar).  In this case the overhead of
BEEP and
>
> You may want to discuss this with James Seng, who has previously
written to
> a similar effect (access models without interposition by a registrar).
IMO
> there are some issues to be resolved when removal of the registrar
agency
> is proposed, but your milage may vary.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric


Home | Date list | Subject list