Re: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?

[James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>]

What I meant from a server side is that with defined OLTP response time
SLA's, it would be a problem handling search queries using the OLTP servers
and database.  For a Registry the size of COM/NET, returning every domain
sponsored by a specific Registrar via the provisioning API would be
extremely expensive and could impact the response times of existing
commands.  We currently provide reports for this type of information.


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Senior Software Engineer
VeriSign Information Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063


21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.


> From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
> Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:18:38 -0400
> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Eugenio Pinto wrote:
>> If IRIS is specifically designed for querying and if a bulk query would be
>> a real problem for big Registries (like COM/NET) are big Registries
>> implementing IRIS on server side?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean "on server side".
> 
>> Is anyone providing EPP and IRIS implementations to your
>> Registrars/Resellers?
> 
> We are not at the moment.  I know there have been internal
> discussions about it, but that's about all I can say on the topic
> just now.
> 
>> I've seen some interesting implementation extensions to EPP and some
>> aspects of IRIS fits better in the whole variety of Registries then EPP
>> definitions. 
> 
> The dreg2 stuff was explicitly aimed at supporting EPP-based systems
> as well as other systems.  The author was very responsive to some
> suggestions I sent; as nearly as I can tell, the approach provides an
> extremely good query framework.
> 
>> Wouldn't it be better to provide a provisioning and querying
>> protocol all-in-one to our Registrars, instead of two different API's with
>> different schemas?...
> 
> I don't see the reason for this.  You have to be able to provide a
> query interface anyway to non-registrar users, so you need such a
> thing.  IRIS is intended to provide that.  It seems more likely that
> one will provide a consistent experience for everyone by providing
> bulk query access via the same interface to everyone.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
> Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew@ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
>                                         +1 416 646 3304 x4110
> 
>