Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[davidk@ISI.EDU]

Eugene,

> Eugene Kashpureff writes :
> 
> On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 davidk@ISI.EDU wrote:
> 
> > 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 ?

I haven't. There is no reason (and funding) for me to do so. I don't have
a stake in any new gTLDs contrary to many others on this list. Why should
I spend time on this if the IAHC will contract this out to somebody else ?

> > > 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.

Decisions for one or the other system can be decided fast as the IAHC has
shown... This doesn't need to take more then a few days. We don't care
what system is choosen initially as long it's working and cheap to
deploy. Later on, we can always put better and more advanced code in
place.

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

The big difference is that source code *is* available. Anybody with the
right education (not just me) can make the modifications that are needed
to run a registry with the earlier mentioned software. I am not the only
one that claims this. I am talking about patches, not completely new
code. Enough people at this list have expressed willingness to code this
within a fixed time given appropriate funding (some even without) in
their own existing database platform.

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

ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software

David K.
---