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