Re: Ok. let's move on (was: RE: Definition of Registry)

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com wrote:
> 
> On 6 Jan 01, at 22:32, Peter Mott wrote:
> 
> ...
> > Anyway, I suspect this thread is now off topic.  Most people here want to
> > build a protocol based on a technical view, not one that takes into account
> > business relationships and legal contracts.
> ...
> 
> Let's move on. I just want to make sure that the definition
> in the document and the protocol that we're building
> are flexible enough to support different views/usage.
> 
> Come to think of it, business relationships *may* affect
> technical design. eg. we may have to use somekind of
> certificate to allow record modification, chain of trust,
> somekind of certificate authority,
> direct access to the database by a large (huge? millions) number
> of users (if registrant is allow to access her own record),
> ... argh that's too complicated. :-(
> 
> Well, I'll let you guys deal with this :-)
> 

Yes, indeed this discussion will have little influence in the design of the
base protocol. But maybe we are able to define an upper layer protocol/common
requirements for registries or similar, and therefore I think it is important
to discuss such things and keep them in mind.

regards,

Klaus Malorny


___________________________________________________________________________
     |       |
     | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
      -------                           Technologiepark
                                        Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
     Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
     Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de             Tel. +49 231 9703 0