Re: [drinks] request for input

["PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <ppfautz at att.com>]

Debbie:

While flexibility is a good thing and I think that the model should incorporate at least a variety of RR types, I'm not in favor of defining some new object with a bunch of attributes in the absence of seeing how that would actually work. I'm concerned that it will lead to more work on the backend.

Are there specific proposals for how the generic route object would be set up? 

 

Penn Pfautz

AT&T Access Management

+1-732-420-4962

 

---

From: drinks-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Guyton, Deborah A
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 10:37 PM
To: drinks at ietf.org
Subject: [drinks] request for input

The protocol design team has been working on a data model and protocol for the registry provisioning interface.

We have associated with each public identifier routing information in the form of resolution answers on the name server.  Initially we looked at specific types of routing info – such as NS and NAPTR Resource Records. We have heard feedback that this is too DNS-centric. We are discussing collapsing these into a “generic” Route Object. This may lead to a long set of attributes, one would be route type, but many others would be optional and may only apply to a given route type.

We would appreciate some feedback –does it make sense to collapse into a generic Route Object? Other suggestions are welcome.

 

Thank you. Please reply to the list.