To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Cc:
Robert Burbidge <robert.burbidge@poptel.coop>, "Ietf-Provreg (E-mail)" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date:
Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:00:55 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<v0313030ab8e0931be647@[199.171.39.21]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Decision on containers - status?
At 10:34 AM 4/15/2002 -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: >(dormantly) around. The third possibility is there in case there are some >folks that feel it is good, "but not right now." > >As far as the PS - it might be that containers are left as an >implementation-specific option. Containers offers the benefit of freedom. It decouples the details of interacting with the registrar's customer from the details of interacting with the registry on behalf of that customer. Without containers, the two are tied together. For many registrar environments, this is not a problem. For others -- particularly larger-scale ones -- the limitation requires many more registrary/registry interactions and more complicated bookkeeping. And bookkeeping is the word. I don't know enough about bookkeeping to know the standard term, but I know that this sort of decoupling is quite common for accounting systems that have any sort of scale. So, folks, yes it is less work now. And clearly many registrars will not reach the size that needs containers. Others will grow into the need. Will, not might. That says that containers needs to be an option. Specification of options often can be deferred. And given the knowledge about them, now, the requirement is to make sure that the current specification does not make adding containers difficult. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850