To:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
"Ietf-Provreg (E-mail)" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date:
Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:30:52 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.33.0204150914230.16481-100000@flash.ar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Decision on containers - status?
At 09:15 AM 4/15/2002 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote: >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, Personally I think the layer of abstractions that containers offers is quite excellent and that the added complexity is not that great. So I was quite surprised at the resistance to it. However I'd say that the working group rough consensus about NOT wanting in required (or, at least, not wanting it at the present time) was undeniable. So I thought that the compromise of making it an option was exactly the right choice. If we are not going to specify the details now, that leaves the requirement that we keep the future use in mind and try to make sure we do not unintentionally prevent the addition later. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850