[Ietf-not43] extensibility

[Edward Lewis]

I had a dramatically worded intro to this, but, I decided to spare 
y'all the theater and cut to the chase...

The current specification of FIRS and IRIS are cut to meet the 
"problems" seen by Domain registries.  It's conceivable that other 
kinds of registries might want to be accommodated in the CRISP 
protocol.  By other kinds I mean Address registries and Routing 
registries.

One observation I've been refining is that when you look at Domain 
registries, DNS is the most important protocol.  In the Address 
registry realm, routing is the most important protocol.  For Domains, 
routing, and for Address, DNS, are "optional" protocols.

DNS has a natural hierarchy, routing doesn't.  This difference make 
me question the FIRS definition of its name space as a basic tenet of 
that approach.

The message subject is "extensibility."  I chose that because I was 
thinking that the more extensible of IRIS and FIRS would be more 
promising.  Sure both LDAP and XML are expressive representations, 
but there is more to extensibility - like, what if the range of use 
of the protocol is extended?  That's behind my comment in the 
previous paragraph.

PS - I haven't had time to really think though how this plays for 
Routing registries.  If anyone can contribute thoughts on this, I'd 
appreciate it.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...