| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.provreg |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
The "scale" claim I'm still mulling on. When I wrote the first ICANN escrow
spec (registries) I put in the means for an escrow deposit to span more than
a single media capacity, a means also present in the second ICANN escrow spec
(registrars), which somebody wrote.
So the unboundednes of a "record" (or sequence of grouped XML glop) is at
least by the capacity bounds of the transport media (current DVDs are big,
but not infinite), and the transmit capacity between the source and sink
does determine the limit before the trasmission of an instance of a record
must also contain updates to data within that record.
But I'm not interested in edge cases of EPP-for-Verisign or EPP-for-GoDaddy,
or transport-for-domainers-slamming-the-com-drop-pool, but in the more common
problem, for which a registry policy declaration of the maximum size of a
unit of data (or the equivalent unerlying database access bandwidth) can be
announced to the registrar, just like a dcp.
For this, a LIST command semantics and syntax can be specified and implemented
and interoperability demonstrated, with the option of using the IETF or any
equivalent means of making the specification available without liability to
its authors, implementors and eventual users.
Based upon limited experience with one registry platform operator's dbms,
the LIST command and the LIST response may be sufficienty seperated in time
to require more bookkeeping overhead than a mere wait() and the assumption
of stream semantics.
Eric
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg