Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

In my previous life, I work on BioInformatics Technology. We deal with
large amount of data generated from genome project. Unfortunately, these
data are scattered in all over the network, university network,
commerical network, using varity of database backend, providing
different kind of interface, using varity of data schema. No one can
agree.

Yes, it is kind of nightmare. But if you think about it, it is no
different from the problem we facing now, with domain names object
scattered in various registries, no standard interface, no fix data
schema etc. No one can agree.

We probably not qualified to solve their problems. But do not think only
Domain Names have these problem. The implication of this provreg could
be very little or very huge.

ps: Looking back..Imaging if HTTP/HTML is design with requirements that
"URL MUST reference to physic information"...I wonder how Internet would
look like now.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Lampson" <lampson@iaregistry.com>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]


> > I am suggesting that
> >
> > a. Quite a lot of other domain names registries have not read it.
> > b. It is probably still incomplete and need more work.
>
> This is likely true.  However, do we care as long as we consider that:
>
> 1) It is only useful for Registries who want an API for Registrants,
> Registrars or Resellers?  (Registries with only a single GUI and/or
web page
> interface won't care.)
>
> 2) It is truly extensible and enhancements can be added as these other
> Registries seek to adopt a common data management model and discover
> limitations in this interface?
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't build as much capability into this system
from
> day 1.  However, we should work with the specific requirements
identified by
> those with the most interest and need for a common protocol -- namely
the
> existing participants on this list.
>
> By the way, keep YOUR comments coming.  Let's just make sure that this
> process continues to move forward as quickly as possible.
>
> Cheers,
>
> _Mike
> --
> Mike Lampson
> The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
> (803) 802-6584
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
> To: "Sheer El-Showk" <sheer@saraf.com>; "Brian W Spolarich"
> <briansp@walid.com>
> Cc: "Patrick" <patrick@gandi.net>; "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>;
> <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]
>
>
> > Maybe I wasn't clear (*sigh* I got misunderstood a lot here), but I
> > never objected to Scott's GRRP Requirements I-D as a starting group.
So
> > I make it in plain English: It is a good start.
> >
> > I am suggesting that
> >
> > a. Quite a lot of other domain names registries have not read it.
> > b. It is probably still incomplete and need more work.
> >
> > -James Seng
> >
> > > If it is, then I am definately in agreement with the general
> > sentiment.  I
> > > don't think we should leave domain name authority in the hands of
the
> > > registrars ... that's an implementation issue (ie per registry)
and
> > > should certainly not be enforced by the protocol.  I don't think,
> > however,
> > > that this is enough ground to say that Scott's doc is a bad basis
for
> > a WG
> > > (I havn't actually looked over the revised version enough to say
> > whether I
> > > like it or not).
> >
> >
>