To:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Sheer El-Showk <sheer@saraf.com>
Date:
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
problems with info command
Hi, I think the current EPP "info" command has several shortcomings that will have significant bearing on performance (especially considering it is likeley to be the second most popular command after "check"). First, the mandatory inclusion of sub-ordinate hosts, on which there is no specified limit for a domain, means that a domain query will be that much more expensive of a command. Each info command will now have to determine a second set of relations and return an arbitrarily large data set. From an implementation perspective it seems like a much better idea to provide an option (as in the transfer command) specifying which kind of nameserver's should be displayed along with the domain -- subordinate or delegate. Second, the ability of non-owning registrars to query each others registry objects strikes me as a very serious performance concern. Registrars can now start treating the registry database like a whois database and data mining it. I've heard arguments that this is a good thing since the registrars are a controlled community with controlled access, but I don't think this is valid. First, registrars allow resellers automated access to their systems and resellers are not a controlled community. Second, this offloads whois work onto the core registry database and attempts to make the latter serve as the former. However, the two systems exist in in very different operating environments. The whois systems have the luxury of lazy sychronization, simplistic load-balancing, and are primarily read-only. The core registry database, however is very expensive/difficult to load-balance and must bear the burden of write and read locking (I'm not being database specific -- this is a operational limitation of any kind of database serving as a registry canonical store). Essentially there can be at most a few instances of a registry database and it is extremely expensive to synchronize them, while it is trivial to replicate whois databases. regards, Sheer