Re: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of IRIS protocol and IRIS dependent services

Andrew Newton <> Fri, 25 January 2008 01:34 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIDSq-000758-6o; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:34:40 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIDSp-000752-Dl for; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:34:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIDSp-0006vP-20 for; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:34:39 -0500
Received: from zilog ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by with esmtp; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:34:38 -0500 id 015880DC.47993CAE.0000464A
Message-Id: <>
From: Andrew Newton <>
In-Reply-To: <01aa01c85ebc$6f3e36f0$4dbaa4d0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [Crisp] Questions re adoption and future of IRIS protocol and IRIS dependent services
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:34:38 -0500
References: <01aa01c85ebc$6f3e36f0$4dbaa4d0$@net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Carl Taswell wrote:

> 1) For those of you who have been active in the CRISP Working Group,  
> do you
> remain optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral about the future of the  
> protocol and services?

DeNIC is a large enough player that it could change the game.  Perhaps  
that might do the trick.  Heck, I'd query their servers just because  
Marcos is such a nice guy. :)

As coincidence might have it, I was just forwarded a message about  
somebody proposing the use of IRIS for some NGN related purpose.

> 4) Andy Newton explains that the lack of code modularity for common  
> content
> such as contacts was purposeful in order to prevent dependence of  
> different
> developments and thereby delays. While I understand the rationale in  
> the
> past, I also see the need for revisions in the future. Yet April  
> Marine
> reports that the Working Group will conclude its work with DCHK. So  
> how will
> any necessary revisions be pursued? From my perspective with my goal  
> of
> building new and different registry types as extensions of the  
> existing
> foundation of IRIS protocol and services, it does NOT make sense for  
> all of
> the registry types to each have individual and separate declarations  
> for
> contacts because it risks loss of interoperability for exchange of  
> contact
> information. Presumably interoperability is a major goal of any  
> standards
> effort. So how can revisions with a re-factoring of the contact  
> information
> into a separate module be pursued if the Working Group is  
> terminating its
> work? Is it necessary to create a new Working Group? Or can the  
> current
> Working Group be continued?

The IETF doesn't need working groups to progress standards.  Future  
registries could be moved through the IETF as individual submissions.   
LDAP is a fine example of that.


Crisp mailing list