To:
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Cc:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:01:48 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<E87F7A42-0654-4C28-BE1A-61452F9CCA01@hxr.us>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.11
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Registry Escrow Information as EPP Spec?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:17:04PM -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> Admittedly, XML is verbose. However, you should be able to easily
> achieve 10:1 compression with standard gzip libraries.
This is certainly true. And I also agree that having a (somewhat?)
standard way of representing most of the objects is a pretty good
idea, too. After all, what use is having it "in XML" if what that
really means is that, at the time an emergency happens such that the
data needs to be recovered from escrow, the people doing the recovery
first have to write a special-purpose parser to get the data into a
format readable by their target DBMS. So the proposals to use
additional EPP mappings or IRIS seem to me to be a good direction to
go. Nevertheless, this still seems like something that needs
attention in contracts first, right?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x4110