Re: [drinks] request for input

["Jean-Francois Mule" <jf.mule at cablelabs.com>]

Hi David,

 You asked:
> On a more general note, is there a preliminary model I can view?
> Are you referring to the ESPP one? If so, I have some comments
> relating to the data model.

Just sent you what the design team has come up with.  If you can post it onto a wiki somewhere and give a link for all folks here, even better.

Jean-François

> -----Original Message-----
> From: drinks-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of David Schwartz
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:22 AM
> To: Guyton, Deborah A; drinks at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [drinks] request for input
> 
> Hi Deborah
> 
> In general I would caution against following the DNS model blindly,
> so to answer your question I would say yes.
> 
> On a more general note, is there a preliminary model I can view?
> Are you referring to the ESPP one? If so, I have some comments
> relating to the data model.
> 
> Is this the forum for that or is it premature to raise my issues?
> 
> David
> ________________________________________
> From: drinks-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Guyton, Deborah A
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 5:37 AM
> 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.
>