-> shared tld mailing list
by "Rick H. Wesson"
-> Re: NEWDOM: Applications
by bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
-> Re: NEWDOM: Applications
by bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
-> Re: NEWDOM: Applications
by "Richard J. Sexton"
-> Re: NEWDOM: Applications
by bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
-> Re: NEWDOM: Applications
by "Richard J. Sexton"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 21:07:06 -0700
From: "Richard J. Sexton"
Subject: Re: NEWDOM: Applications
At 10:23 PM 10/18/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 03:13 PM 10/18/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>I guess everone is working on their applications. Well would
>>anyone like to talk about integration software to run these
>>new NICs? I believe we had a charter written that delt with
>>NIC integration.
URL ?
>>I would like to at least finalize the issue of contact handles
>>so that we could at least come up with a BCP for how ISPs should
>>handle their handles with the 50 new NICs...
>>
>>I believe this is one area where can make our selves look better than
>>NSI, un less we can't agree on anything. Then we have lead the end
>>user down a faulty path.
>>-Rick
Where ar we at with this, are we still using nic handles (the
idea I favour).
either we need a central handle registry or we all have
to have all the handle data. i suppose we should decide on
that
- --
"It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 21:52:00 -0700
From: "Rick H. Wesson"
Subject: shared tld mailing list
Is the shared tld list still up and running?
- -Rick
- --
Rick H. Wesson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:19:06 -0700
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
Subject: Re: NEWDOM: Applications
> >>so that we could at least come up with a BCP for how ISPs should
> >>handle their handles with the 50 new NICs...
> >>
> >>I believe this is one area where can make our selves look better than
> >>NSI, un less we can't agree on anything. Then we have lead the end
> >>user down a faulty path.
> >>-Rick
>
> Where ar we at with this, are we still using nic handles (the
> idea I favour).
>
> either we need a central handle registry or we all have
> to have all the handle data. i suppose we should decide on
> that
>
This question has been answered for the rwhois case
and the SWIP stuff for RIPE and APNIC. Check the
rwhois archives, I beleive the method used is:
handle-NICid
so, for the InterNIC
WM110
For RIPE
WM110-RIPE
APNIC
WM110-APNIC
For Sesquinet
WM110-SESQUI
- --
- --bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:21:27 -0700
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
Subject: Re: NEWDOM: Applications
> >>so that we could at least come up with a BCP for how ISPs should
> >>handle their handles with the 50 new NICs...
> >>
> >>I believe this is one area where can make our selves look better than
> >>NSI, un less we can't agree on anything. Then we have lead the end
> >>user down a faulty path.
> >>-Rick
>
> Where ar we at with this, are we still using nic handles (the
> idea I favour).
>
> either we need a central handle registry or we all have
> to have all the handle data. i suppose we should decide on
> that
>
This question has been answered for the rwhois case
and the SWIP stuff for RIPE and APNIC. Check the
rwhois archives, I beleive the method used is:
handle-NICid
so, for the InterNIC
WM110
For RIPE
WM110-RIPE
APNIC
WM110-APNIC
For Sesquinet
WM110-SESQUI
- --
- --bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:28:57 -0700
From: "Richard J. Sexton"
Subject: Re: NEWDOM: Applications
>
> This question has been answered for the rwhois case
> and the SWIP stuff for RIPE and APNIC. Check the
> rwhois archives, I beleive the method used is:
>
> handle-NICid
>
> so, for the InterNIC
>
> WM110
>
> For RIPE
>
> WM110-RIPE
>
> APNIC
> WM110-APNIC
Bleh.
What would be the proble, of just haveing A nic handle, rather
than one per registry?
"Lessee, I'm rs79 on InterNIC, RJS on Alter.NIC, rs39 on RIPE and so on."
- --
"It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:33:06 -0700
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
Subject: Re: NEWDOM: Applications
> Bleh.
>
> What would be the proble, of just haveing A nic handle, rather
> than one per registry?
>
> "Lessee, I'm rs79 on InterNIC, RJS on Alter.NIC, rs39 on RIPE and so on."
>
>
Local policies? The desire to descriminate which registry is being
used? A couple more reasons come to mind... :)
I guess we can deal with the fact that there are already registries
that have delt with this issue and come to a reasonable compromise,
or
we can create our own and try and mandate its use... retroactivly.
- --
- --bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:39:50 -0700
From: "Richard J. Sexton"
Subject: Re: NEWDOM: Applications
At 11:32 PM 10/18/96 -0700, you wrote:
> we can create our own and try and mandate its use... retroactivly.
or we can share the InterNIC nic-handle namespace - not
mandate it but make it available to other registries
if they want to use it...
- --
"It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition"
