Re: Decision on containers - status?

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Dave,

I'd actually disagree as mainiaing the efficiencies of contains is not
very a complex task from a registrar point of view -- and since I've
implemented more registrar back ends than anyone else I'm speaking from
experence.

-rick


On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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
>