Re: [weirds] Scope and guiding principles (was Re: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-dnrd-ap-query-00.txt)

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04-05-12 20:20, Francisco Arias wrote:
> On 5/4/12 1:57 AM, "Peter Koch" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> 2. We MUST only specify features that are already
>>> required/implemented by registries/registrars. )Other features
>>> can be specified later by those interested in extensions to the
>>> protocol.)
>> 
>> Limiting scope makes sense, but where's the threshold? At least
>> one? The "majority"? Is the ICANN/gTLD world what counts?
> 
> At least one.

I disagree. I'd say majority or consensus, otherwise we'll not succeed
to create anything and be discussing for the next 20 years for the
feasibility of a registry specific feature, or local law specific
request. Let's start with what's out there today.

And since it is protocol, it must fit RIR's/gTLD's/ccTLD's, where some
RIR queries are not used by TLD's and visa versa, but anyone
understands a TLD does not have to implement f.e. route objects.



- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Technical Policy Advisor SIDN
Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands

P: [phone]  F: [phone]  M: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail]  xmpp:[e-mail]
http://www.sidn.nl/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPqM66AAoJEDqHrM883Agn3EMH/iWsJ8pPlXi84uxyQh8Pjwb7
LTLpP5U39/PZP4qTn01QCC/sjtOOX7xIZnzxKm9S/sKZE4z+iGzr2n0g7l3PfeAD
k/6aamUwbI7IqD3VHmrErqeOVodFd2i52eiqCgyBkrDKbtG7EudF/OWMHoF6gFPh
zk/p8v5SHMrsuqTz1h9MpwyvtUBpSAmyNotACO2Fzy/a4PjSAAwQGyNmYpiJej4a
AzpCwqXD3zzMSn5qbCGuewyLu5ODGfuPH4A+xoLQVu9OOyP0ySeYMLcUc8M8cQNj
1zgImVdU3yWCTqu5X2Y9VGkr2cCkXcAmsbV2SmU3acnIM6FLknc1llLFczObQKg=
=KS91
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----