Re: Merging RRP and Whois

% 
% I have envisioned the following rough sequence of events/solution as
% minimizing the required effort (by the ProvReg group and others) while
% maximizing the achieved benefits.  I want to make this explicit, in
% case some of the discussion here resulted because of confusion.
% 
%   1. The ProvReg group designs a protocol.  This protocol allows/assumes:
%       * A centralized object repository (registry) is assumed.

	Why is this assumption in place?
	One could (rightly) argue that the single largest cause of
	instability and scaleability is the insistance on using 
	"A centralized ... repository".  The problems with that 
	tactic caused the original IR to segment into multiple
	regional IRs, each retaining/maintaining "A centralized
	repository". Its gotten worse with the addition of each new
	"routing database" & whois service by agency.  Each presumes
	a single "centralized repository".

	I'd rather see a protocol to allow a composite, non authoritative
	structure be fabricated from collections of hundreds/thousands 
	of broadly distributed attributes. That way I would own my 
	data and be able to direct its distribution to/through others
	non-auth copies of my data.


--bill