Re: Regestry Identifiers

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@imc.org>]

At 6:12 PM -0800 11/17/96, Rick H. Wesson wrote:
>I was asking if the IAHC was going to mandate that a regestry should
>provide a security mechanism for their contact data (ie gardian) or
>if the IAHC was going to leave things like this up to the individual

	ahh.  Good question.  At the moment, we are ranging across
meta-issues (or maybe meta-meta-issues) so that this sort of detail isn't
getting much discussion.  And I'm not sure it should.  Yes, it's important,
but the general philosophy that is emerging (and is especially dictated by
the short time-frame) is to specify as little as is practical, while still
getting the essential job done.

	Having said that, I'll express some personal interest in the
feeling from other list participants about this and similar issues.

>regestry. I also wanted to understand if the IAHC was going to define
>the format of the data a regestry must manage. (ie how contact handles
>will be created so that you will know what regestry "owns" that handle)

	Egad.  Now THAT's getting detailed.  Not unreasonable, just
detailed.  Canwe/shouldwe expect or require such detail; canwe/shouldwe use
it in evaluating proposals?  In what way?

>Would it be better to work out a common set of templates or is everybody
>going to use the ones the InterNic uses. Would it not be better that an IETF
>WG define these templates and write a public domain parser for them? I also

	This sounds like an entirely reasonable approach, to me.  It has
the benefit of not requiring the IAHC to get into the middle of it but,
instead, let the usual standards process develop and mandate it.  An effort
like the IAHC can then get by with "implement and conform to all relevant
Internet standards" languge and be done with it.

	yes?

>have lots of questions about the interoplation of contact handles. I wanted
>to know if I should submit a proposal to the IAHC on the topic or persu the
>creation of a IETF WG to deal with the subject.

	My very strong personal opinion (strongly personal, strong opinion)
is that all DNS-related technical matters -- defining technologies such as
protocols and formats -- MUST be pursued ONLY through the IETF.

>The situation I would like to avoid is the one where the ISP is confused
>as to the procedures used to regester and manage data related to
>    o requesting new domains
>    o protecting others from using their name server w/o their approval.
>    o notification of deleteing a domain.
>    o domain modification.
>    o where to get/send domain templates.

	If Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu> or Mike O'Dell
<mo@uunet.uu.net> are lurking on this list, they might wish to comment on
this and the rest of this thread.  Otherwise, I commend you to them, since
they are the IETF operations requirements area directors.

	Thanks for raising this.

d/


(read the last line, please)
----------------------------
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segré Place                                             dcrocker@imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                 http://www.imc.org

Also:  IAHC member, expressing personal opinions