[Ietf-not43] extensibility

[Richard Shockey]

>>
>>>It's not a matter of what's best for the user vs. what's best for the 
>>>provider.  Between FIRS and IRIS, well, let's assume they both provide 
>>>the same service.  In that case I'd say it is valid for the providers to 
>>>lean to the one that offers it more cheaply.  Because the cheaper one is 
>>>chosen, in the long run every one wins.
>>Exactly IRIS provides a simplified overall business process architecture 
>>for,IMHO, the domain name industry based on what we have to do. I cant 
>>speak to the business process issues among the RIR's.
>>And lets face it the TLD operators, including my distinguished 
>>colleagues/competitors from Verisign really don't want to do anything if 
>>they don't have to since the economics of the business are not very 
>>pleasant these days even for a major Generic or CC tld.
>>One way or another implementing these protocols will cost money and my 
>>analysis concludes that IRIS will be simpler and less expensive.
>
>Is this really so? What makes you think so that a complete new 
>implementation will be cheaper than using existing technology and do some 
>tweaks to make it CRISP compliant?

Well as Andrew pointed out correctly, it seems obvious that a truly 
stunning number of , dare I say it, "e-business" practices are moving to a 
XML based architecture transported on FOO. The classic being SOAP may of us 
have lots of experience with SOAP.... that PROVREG is going to such a 
design that many TLD's will be contractually obligated ( Layer 9 again) to 
implement means that I have to build a service platform to support it ..If 
I can reuse that platform to implement CRISP, that is economically a "good 
thing"


>Alone the fact that Eric could perl a FIRS client in one week prooves ho 
>cheap it can be to deploy FIRS. I know it is a long way from proof of 
>concept to production service, but what makes you think this path is 
>shorter with XML?

I have no doubt it would be simple to implement FIRS ..is just that I dont 
want to .. that means 2 platforms I have to support and the registration 
data from PROVREG has to be converted...that is more work. When I have to 
propose capital budgets for platforms that do this and that the question is 
always raised ..." Well cant we reuse this box and development time for that?"


>Are there existing XML data base technologiers that are as performant, 
>scalable and secure as are LDAP implementations?

Yep... look at the APACHE SOAP stuff.. the bindings and transport are 
easily adaptable. We in the IETF are generally opposed to the use of HTTP/S
transport for everything under the sun which is why BEEP was developed. In 
fact the IESG has a directive specifically prohibiting the further use of 
HTTP as a transport layer in IETF application protocols. If the IETF 
weren't so opposed to SOAP on religious grounds we'd probably be using 
that. And if I had to choose I'd prefer SOAP but I'm realistic enough to 
know that is not going to happen.


>Only because things like Web services are being deployed in the 
>commercial  realm, does this make IRIS deployment really cheaper?

IMHO yes. Nails are cheep, Hammers are expensive :-)



>>>What Richard and I said was that for the provider, it seems that IRIS 
>>>has an edge in adoption given other work being done in registries. 
>>>Perhaps there are advantages down the FIRS road he and I are missing. 
>>>And perhaps FIRS is more suited to what the consumers demand.  The 
>>>latter two points need to be made.
>>
>>If there are advantages of FIRS for consumers I'd certainly like to see 
>>that list.
>
>One might be that FIRS client will be easy to write and client authors 
>will find lots of goodies and features to the liking of the user. But I 
>think the main advantages are more for the FIRS providers, since data 
>management, replication scenarios, backup mechanisms, and above all 
>distribution of data in a server mesh just are there and easily handable.

maybe ... I remain unconvinced.



>>But realistically I take John Klensin's comments to heart that the sooner 
>>we make a decision the better. There are Layer 9 issues here (political 
>>aka ICANN) we have to deal with.
>
>Yup. Layer 9 is quite unpredictable for a technician like me. But don't 
>the political decisions more influence Layer 8 instead of the technical layers?

alas yes .... but in this situation they cannot be ignored especially when 
the choice between IRIS and FIRS on purely protocol and service 
requirements are virtually indistinguishable.



 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<