[Ietf-not43] Is it just me or is there a desire here to avoid the chair's request..

[Shane Kerr]

Richard Shockey wrote:
> 
> over a more substantive discussion of the meta issues involved in FIRS 
> vs IRIS.
> 
> I'll say it again folks ... I oppose FIRS on the merits for the reasons 
> I outlined previously and I would like my colleagues in the Domain Name 
> Industry and RIR's to please come out of the closet and make your views 
> known.
> 
> In the closed environment we are dealing with which means the Domain 
> Name Industry and the RIR's will be directly affected by the protocols 
> adopted here I think it is prudent to evaluate these proposals based on 
> their economic impact on our operations as well as the merits of their 
> conformance to the requirements.
> 
> and yes I will freely admit I prefer XML query response mechanisms to 
> LDAP on a purely Layer 10 basis.

Personally, I prefer XML based mechanisms.  We use XML here, and XML 
maps in a straightforward way to our schema.

We could probably use LDAP, but a lot of our problem space is either:

- not hierarchical
- searches not lookups

LDAP is not really a technology we're familiar with, so the cost would 
probably be higher here than for XML.  I expect we'll have to do some 
software development on our side no matter what, and not having to 
learn a new paradigm would be a huge cost savings.

I know LDAP has authentication baked-in, but I don't really know how 
it applies to the FIRS universe.  This could be a win for the LDAP 
implementation.

To be honest, I haven't read all of the drafts, and the information 
may be there.  But there are 151 pages of draft for FIRS and 173 pages 
of draft for IRIS.

I have read the 26 pages of requirements from the RIR's though.  :)

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC