-> CHARTER
by Simon Higgs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 1996 01:34:56 -0700
From: Simon Higgs
Subject: Re: List purpose
At 11:15 PM -0500 7/28/96, Keith Winstein wrote:
Where have you been? I fixed this on Saturday. Only the first one or two
messages went out like that.
;-)
>On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Shared Top Level Domain Mailing List wrote:
>
>> is this list the same as newdom?
>>
>> the charter looks different.
>>
>> do we want a replacement newdom ?
>>
>
>Ack! A misconfigured list! Argh... without signatures, it's now
>impossible to tell who wrote this message. Simon, _please_ have the
>"From:" header be the name of the sender of the message, and the
>"Reply-to:" header be shared-tld@higgs.net. Please. :-)
_____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s______________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____
... "I'm fine - it's the others" .............. President/CEO ................
_____e-mail: ________________ ______
..... .....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 1996 06:22:30 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: How to handle first-come, first-served
Michael Dillon writes:
> The theory is that I am a registry and I must execute a transaction
> against a shared database to register the name. In order to execute the
> registration I must have all the domain contact info, nameservers and a
> commitment from the customer. Sometime I want to check availability
> without collecting all the domain info or getting a commitment.
This is totally standard in all similar databases like airline or
ticket reservation systems. You might call up a registry with three
possible names to use, and they reserve all of them for ten minutes as
they do the query to find out which is actually available and give you
an opportunity to pick. Perhaps they note that a similar name is
available and hold that for a few minutes. This is very similar to
being told by the reservation clerk "well, I have two seats on the 8pm
flight, but they aren't together, and I have two seats together on the
7pm flight, but that flight has a stopover in Dallas." You would be
pissed off if the seats disappeared in the minute it takes you to make
a decision. Thats why these systems lock all the things under
consideration for a short period.
Really, this is totally standard in online transaction systems and I
don't don't understand why people have a problem with it. Perhaps the
people who don't see why this is important have never built a
transaction system.
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 1996 18:10:54 -0700
From: Simon Higgs
Subject: CHARTER
Well. There isn't really one yet. This is it so far:
"It's purpose is to discuss the technical and logistical requirements of
creating shared domain name registration databases, and the administration
of delegated top level domains by multiple domain name registries.
"This list is open to all with an interest in developing shared domain name
registration services. The intended function of this list is to be the
official home of an IETF working group."
I had several comments about the distributed-database method to implement
shared TLD's being too much to bite off at this point. Maybe starting off
with a client-server model, with a view to migrating that to
distributed-database might be the way to go. We could use a master server
to test it all out on, and then add other databases once we know the
concept works. The final goal is to end up with a distributed-database
model.
As far as the charter document goes, we already have the pupose of the
list. We basically need to set up the perceived goals of the list, and the
order we need to implement them.
Send all comments to the list under this subject.
Thanks,
_____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s______________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____
... "I'm fine - it's the others" .............. President/CEO ................
_____e-mail: ________________ ______
..... .....