[Ietf-not43] First draft on Relay bags in FIRS

[Richard Shockey]

>
>
>>However, this is also one of the reasons that I disbelieve that LDAP
>>is as conveniently-usable a solution to this problem as some believe.
>
>I don't really understand this argument: only because there are additional 
>features in LDAP that might have a mere theoretical impact to FIRS 
>features, why does this make LDAP a bad choice. The difference between the 
>IRIS and the FIRS approach is that IRIS is more encapsulated, thus being 
>more a protocol of its own than an addition to an existing protocol, which 
>means using IRIS will give you exactly what IRIS specifies, with FIRS you 
>will get what FIRS specifies and additional LDAP features that might or 
>might not be usefull for crisp.

I disagree and support once again Leslie's position here ... IRIS IMHO is 
sufficiently extensible to add features in the future as demand requires. 
But to the whole point here I'm prepared to stipulate that both protocols 
can deliver the service and protocol requirements though it seems self 
evident that we are looking at  FIRS specific servers and clients ... or am 
I missing something? That again looks like rough equlivancy.

But IRIS gives me what I want,  which is consistent service architecture 
that will permit me to incorporate EPP as well as IRIS in a unified 
platform, hopefully with a consistent transport, that will not require that 
I set up some different foo thing to cover the CRISP requirements, and is 
in rough alignment with modern XML based query response mechanisms in 
general use ..aka SOAP.

Frankly if there was any real interest I'd petition the IESG to lift the 
prohibition on port 80 (HTTP) application protocols and do both EPP and 
CRISP in SOAP but the chances of that are between zero and absolute zero.

to me this is not a Layer 10 issue its Layer 8

reminder

10. Religious
9.   Political
8. Economic

I want to return to the co-chairs principal requests in this discussion period.

######

During this discussion period, the group is expected to discuss
the pros and cons of the two candidate protocol suites, with
two main aims:  identify any remaining requirements which have
not been met by the protocols; assess and comment on the
suitability of the protocols for the task set out in the requirements
document.

It is explicitly in scope for this discussion to consider the effort
in development and deployment of clients and servers; it is
also explicitly in scope to consider the advantages and disadvantages
of reusing specific technologies (LDAP, XML).

#######

My point is, if it is clear that both protocols meet the requirements and 
both will require new clients and servers than IRIS is the logical choice 
because of it consistency with EPP and the current state of the domain name 
industry.

>Cheers,


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
  <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<