Re: Merging RRP and Whois

At 11:35 PM -0500 1/23/01, James Seng/Personal wrote:
>Right. We are still probably doing scoping. However, I do want to remind
>everyone that if ProReg is nothing more than an improved SRS/RRP for
>ICANN-accredited registrar to Verisign, then IMHO we dont need this WG.

Perhaps you should review the charter proposed for this group.  (It's in
the archive, I can send you a copy off-list if you want.)  The charter is
written to say that the results of the WG would be a generic protocol for
registration information (domain names, IP addresses, etc.) but with a
short term emphasis on domain names.

>SRS/RRP is so specific to Verisign design that I am not sure how useful
>it is to other Registries. If you are looking for an improved SRS/RRP,
>then Verisign can do it on their own with their registrars.

This is a "historical accident."  The drafts leading up to the BOF were
produced by Verisign, and although input was sought, none was forthcoming
(again, prior to the BOF).  Post-BOF, there have been lively discussions on
the mailing list, with input coming from a number of ccTLDs and ICANN
gTLDs.  We are progressing on a requirements document that is intended to
be the consensus of the group, not restricted to the original document as
submitted by Verisign.

The latest draft is:
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06.txt
As we are not a WG yet, it is listed as an individual submission - that of
Scott Hollenbenck, a memeber of Verisign.

To help reduce bias in the final result, the co-chairs (myself and Jaap
Akerhuis) work for a non-registr* company and a ccTLD company respectively.

>In the same way, if result of this WG (if created), is not suitable for
>my absurd needs, I will move on design my own or modify it with my
>partners to suit our need.

Comments and additional text for the requirements document are welcome.  I
am hoping for an always wider field of input.

>Other registries may refused to adopted SRS/RRP just because it is
>tailored to Verisign. I know quite a few Registries who has blantly
>refused to use it so as not to create an association altho there is no
>technical reason not to do so. Or they may use it and once again modify
>it to their own.
>
>Unfortunately, this means we end-up with variant of the basically same
>protocol but yet not exactly the same. That is interoperability
>nightmare.

This is why this WG is under consideration - to avoid that "nightmare."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email protected]

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.