To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"'Edward Lewis'" <lewis@tislabs.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "'Jaap Akkerhuis'" <jaap@sidn.nl>
From:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date:
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:32:43 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5F9A0@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Push vs. not Push
I really hate it when I have to agree with someone from NSI... but this is one of those times. Just as there is a concern about imposing extra complexity on registration participants who have a light load, there needs to be concern about imposing inefficiencies on participants who have a heavy load. Pursuing a core specification which is simpler, with optional extensions that provide more power, is the classic -- and exactly appropriate -- solution to this sort of debate. d/ At 12:07 PM 8/23/2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >From a gTLD registry operator perspective... > >We should have a set of MUST implement basic functions, including a function >for exchange of operational notices. I would prefer a polling mechanism in >the set of MUSTs. I would also like to suggest that it may be possible to >define an optional push extension that may or may not be >transport-dependent. > ><Scott/> ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464