[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [XRIXDI] RE: [xdi] Prototypical use case attempt: Registration
Victor, I agree. The way I think about it is that Registries by definition assign e-numbers and e-names as requested by Registrants. Registrars only facilitate these transactions. However a Registrar is itself almost certainly a Registrant (i.e., it has it's own e-number(s) and e-name(s) assigned by a Registry(s) with whom the Registrar does business), and the Registrar may also run a Registry in which it in turn assigns delegate e-numbers and e-names. So it's turtles all the way down ;-) But in their respective roles, it should always be Registries as the authorities assigning the e-numbers or e-names. The key difference is that the Registry will most like assign e-numbers automatically per request (such as serially), whereas the opposite is true of e-names, the vast majority of which will be selected by the Registrant. =Drummond -----Original Message----- From: Victor Grey [mailto:victor@customdynamic.net] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 9:00 AM To: Fen Labalme Cc: Drummond Reed; 'XDI TC'; xrixdi@idcommons.net Subject: Re: [XRIXDI] RE: [xdi] Prototypical use case attempt: Registration Thanks Fen. Your comments mirror my understanding perfectly. The central question at hand seems to be whether we are going to architect a system in which Registrars are e-number registries in their own right. It would be a simpler system, imho, to keep the e-number namespace responsibilities centralized in each registry (of which there may be many, each defining a sub-namespace). Is there anything to be gained by delegating e-number namespace authority to the Registrar? My preference is to keep the registry and Registrar roles distinct. -Victor
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]