Subject: [Ietf-not43] scope

From: ehall at ehsco.com (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Tue Aug 19 12:54:56 2003

It seems to me that the fundamental question continues to be one of
service scope: do we believe that the service will ultimately be measured
by the existing ~whois providers, or by user-to-user edge deployments.

Let's consider DNS as an analagous service. The core functionality (name
resolution) started as a tightly-centralized service (HOSTS.TXT), evolved
into a distributed service (this is the junction where we are with CRISP),
but eventually became dominated by edge-based deployments, with orgs
running their own servers, and with user-to-user schema dominating the
query traffic.

In my opinion, we are heading down that same path with CRISP. We already
know that there are currently-deployed applications out there that need a
lookup-plus-search service which supports ACLs, large messages (larger
than the DNS maximum of 64k anyway), comprehensive searches, and several
other features. We already know that there is a pent-up demand for
as-yet-uninvented applications that require the pre-existence of such a
service before the applications themselves can be developed. And looking
at the history of services like DNS (and SMTP, and so forth), we also know
the user community has a willingness to deploy edge solutions.

That's what I think we're talking about as the ultimate target here. The
central-service community is certainly important, but it's not more
important than the ultimate objective.

Furthermore, we won't get another chance at this for a very long time, if
ever. What makes this work so important is that it is moving the central
data into a distributed model, which is the necessary step towards moving
towards a heavily-distributed mesh of edges. There probably won't be
another chance at this.

So again I ask you to consider the central issue, which is ultimately
about the potential scope of the service.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: anewton at ecotroph.net (Andrew Newton)
Date: Tue Aug 19 15:14:25 2003

Actually, I'd like to declare this out of scope.  We have no 
requirements for unified data substrates, edge-to-edge services, 
user-to-user schemas, life, the universe, everything, etc...

These are all Layer 10 (Religious) issues.  We could yell at each other 
all day long, but at the end of the day I doubt any hearts or minds will 
have been swayed.

Plus, we have that warning from April.

-andy

---

From: ehall at ehsco.com (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Tue Aug 19 15:29:32 2003

on 8/19/2003 2:41 PM Andrew Newton wrote:

> Actually, I'd like to declare this out of scope.

There's a shocker

> We have no  requirements for unified data substrates,

We certainly had this at the beginning when the requirements were for
domains, addresses and users in a universal service, before this was
whittled down to just domains by the IESG (not by us).

> edge-to-edge services, user-to-user schemas

Is it out of scope to expect the obvious?

---

From: April.Marine at nominum.com (April Marine)
Date: Tue Aug 19 15:33:04 2003

Just to be clear, we are considering our candidate protocols as to how
well they conform to the requirements in the requirements doc.  That's why
we took so much time and care on that doc, cuz it makes this stage of the
process so much easier! ;)

thanks,
April