Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[Eugene Kashpureff <ekashp@alternic.net>]

On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 davidk@ISI.EDU wrote:

> > Shared registry code does not exist. 
> > See that. Clearly. Folks at IETF did.
> 
> Repeating something that is not true does not make it true.

We know there are no significant barriers ... other than process.
Your current work on data definition is evidence of this ... 

> You might want to read your mail and could have listened better during
> the 'newdom' IETF BoF. 

No, I couldn't have listened much better than I did from the second row.

> Rick Wesson has told several times that he has prototype code 

That wasn't altogether there yet ...

> I have stated several times that I could very quickly modify the RIPE 
> database (used by many IP, routing & exclusive TLD registries right now) 
> to support the shared registry model. 

But have you yet ?

> > These were not the only solutions that were posted to the IAHC
> > All the solutions share one property: they can all be operational in 
> > very short time (<month). Most of the solutions are

They share another trait: none of them has been decided on yet.

They *could* be deployed, they aren't. Where I come from, that's still 
damn vapor ware.

> > deployment with a small set of > registrars.

Ya, remember who made that comment ? Several ... who ?


At your name service,

Eugene Kashpureff, ALTERNIC.NET

BTW Where does find the most current copies of your RIPE reg stuff ?
Thanks.