Re: privacy

[Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>]

On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 16:11 Canada/Eastern, Edward Lewis wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely. That sounds like a strong argument in favour of leaving 
contentious (or registry-specific) matters like policy hooks out of the 
base spec, and allowing them to be implemented as extensions.

The base spec should contain the bare minimum functionality in order to 
provide the essential elements common to the vast majority (and 
hopefully all) registries. Putting stuff in there which is necessarily 
registry-specific means registries will have to break the base spec in 
order to implement it.


Joe