[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New proposal from Ronald J. Fitzherbert
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:47:15 -0800 (PST)
- From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
- Subject: Re: New proposal from Ronald J. Fitzherbert
Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
>
>
> Kent Crispin writes:
> > Bet I can do that perl script quicker than Perry and Michael can get
> > their database stuff going.
>
> Kent, getting a database going with the level of sophistication you
> are talking about is idiotically trivial.
>
> I mean, in a modern database system, we are talking basically a single
> statement of the form "atomically insert into the domain table where
> the data for the row is 'blah blah blah'".
No, we are actually talking about something a bit more sophisticated,
I think, and this is why I think it would take you a little longer: We
want an *authenticated* database. Only the registries can be allowed
to insert entries; we certainly wouldn't want passwords flowing in
cleartext across the net. Now, I readily admit that I am not an
expert in databases, but it so happens that in my real job I have a
need for a secure database, I have seen several vendor presentations,
and I don't think it is going to be as easy or as cheap as you imply.
Certainly doable. But "idiotically trivial"? I would be interested
in hearing your solution.
> > To repeat, contrary to Bob Allisats ex cathedra pronouncements, there
> > is no big technical obstacle to implementing shared registries.
>
> This I agree with.
>
> > The point is that there is an embarassment of solutions to this
> > problem -- enough so that I don't think it is necessary to specify one
> > that applies to all TLDs.
>
> This I'm not sure about. I can imagine twenty or thirty protocols that
> are similar to SMTP, but having a single one standardized is a useful
> thing. Standardizing a protocol, even if its simple, has value.
True. And, for the record, I agree. In fact, I suggested in my draft
that the protocols must either be specified in the TLD charter, or in
an RFC (which would imply two independent interoperable
implementations...).
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F