Re: privacy

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

Break v. Extend ;)

The way it should work is that if Brand A and Brand B both are 
compliant (remember that we use interoperable, not compliant though), 
then both will understand whatever they are compliant with (e.g., the 
base, extention 1, etc.).  If an extension is needed in the Brand A 
client to talk with the Brand B server for a given registry, extend 
the Brand A client should be a matter of adding a software module.

That's how it is supposed to work.

At 16:08 -0500 1/8/03, Joe Abley wrote:
>On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 15:53 Canada/Eastern, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
>>  At 11:15 -0500 1/8/03, Joe Abley wrote:
>>>  I suspect that the requirements need work (or at least they need 
>>>input based
>>>  on real-life registry policy, as opposed to policy assumed by the IESG).
>>
>>  It's not so much the issue for a registry but for a registrar, 
>>which I sense isn't being considered.
>
>I haven't been considering the registrar position much, that's true.
>
>However, if the protocol collides with policies of different 
>registries, then registries are going to be obliged to break the 
>protocol in order to deploy it. You can bet that different 
>registries will break the protocol in different ways.
>
>This does not sound like something that will improve the chances of 
>client interop.
>
>
>Joe

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer