To:
"'EPP Provreg'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Cc:
ed.lewis@neustar.biz
From:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Date:
Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:50:53 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<4B501B7B.9060303@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list
I'd like to second what Eric mentions here - mostly because he and I have never discussed this in person before. For the most part, his list is dead-on the same as the one I wrote in my mind recently. It's not just the extensions that are being written. It's the angst of the growing community I hear. (See also PAF's note). At 2:38 -0500 1/15/10, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >Our universe was 6 and 60. It is now 60 and 600. > >We over constrained the end points, and the event model. > >We over constrained the transport mappings, the drop pool is an edge >case, not the general case. > >We didn't generalize the syntax to allow "containers" (Zhang/Damaraju). > >The syntax wasn't really all that extensible. > >We didn't include resellers/members in the end points model, and >therefore we didn't include routing, settlement, giveup, pricing >query or subaccounts in the use cases. > >Eric But - next week I hope to cobble together a more complete work load list/charter prototype. (If no one else does one first. ;)) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 As with IPv6, the problem with the deployment of frictionless surfaces is that they're not getting traction. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se