RE: [enum-wg] Proposal for new org-type
Jim Reid wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 09:35, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I would like this list to be extended with the term REGISTRY.
I will note the issue tomorow in the ENUM WG, but need consensus to take place here, so please comment either here or tomorrow in the ENUM WG session.
I strongly support the idea of having a new organisation type to describe ENUM "registries".
I was actually going to sugest ENUM-REGISTRY as org type. But RIPE NCC told me they'd favoured the term REGISTRY, probably so they could also use it for other registries not active in the RIR world. Perhaps they have the intention to sell their database to registration organisation for car license plates or whatever. Would thy then need to introduce another org-type ? (License-plate-REGISTRY). So should I change the proposal to be ENUM-REGISTRY ? Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:10 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 09:35, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I would like this list to be extended with the term REGISTRY.
I will note the issue tomorow in the ENUM WG, but need consensus to take place here, so please comment either here or tomorrow in the ENUM WG session.
I strongly support the idea of having a new organisation type to describe ENUM "registries".
I was actually going to sugest ENUM-REGISTRY as org type. But RIPE NCC told me they'd favoured the term REGISTRY, probably so they could also use it for other registries not active in the RIR world.
What about ccTLD and gTLD registries? (Most of them are LIRs, but there could be some corner cases...) Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Ondrej, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:10 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I was actually going to sugest ENUM-REGISTRY as org type. But RIPE NCC told me they'd favoured the term REGISTRY, probably so they could also use it for other registries not active in the RIR world.
What about ccTLD and gTLD registries? (Most of them are LIRs, but there could be some corner cases...)
I am not entirely sure what you mean, I am afraid. Could you clarify? Thanks and best: -C.
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 16:37 +0200, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Ondrej,
Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:10 +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I was actually going to sugest ENUM-REGISTRY as org type. But RIPE NCC told me they'd favoured the term REGISTRY, probably so they could also use it for other registries not active in the RIR world.
What about ccTLD and gTLD registries? (Most of them are LIRs, but there could be some corner cases...)
I am not entirely sure what you mean, I am afraid. Could you clarify?
My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet. We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with whatever label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP). Hence I could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to REGISTRY to match reality a bit more. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Hi Ondrej,
My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet. We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with whatever label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP). Hence I could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to REGISTRY to match reality a bit more.
I see. But although LIRs are indeed mostly ISPs AFAIK the term was never strictly meant or used for ISPs only. There is Enterprise LIRs, too - these LIRs do get allocations as well, but make assignments only for own purposes, they do not assign address space further down the food chain. NICs from my PoV would clearly fall under that category - if they became an LIR once. So although I see where you coming from and aiming at, I'd say that in these cases the governing agreement between RIR (RIPE NCC) and LIR (a NIC aka. ccTLD registry) is the standard LIR agreement - so the type "LIR" seems to be more correct to me... Best, -C.
Oh, ... Ondřej Surý wrote:
My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet. We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with whatever label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP). Hence I could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to REGISTRY to match reality a bit more.
... I forgot to send a link I had been pointed at (Thanks, Leo!) where some definition for an LIR can be found: http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/membership/newlir-registration.html#3 Best, -C.
Hi, I cc'd the Database WG list for input on object syntax. On 3 Oct 2006, at 4:52GMT+02:00, Ondřej Surý wrote: [...]
My point was that not only ENUM registries exists in current internet. We are .cz domain registry and while I don't have problem with whatever label we have in RIPE database (we do have LIR atm), we don't exactly fall into LIR category (in it's original meaning - ie. ISP). Hence I could easily imagine that our org-type: would be changed to REGISTRY to match reality a bit more.
One legal entity might run an LIR, a ccTLD registry and an ENUM registry. Whether you want to identify them as a REGISTRY, a DOMAIN- REGISTRY or something else is dependent on what you want to use the org-type to tell people. Looking back into the mail archives for 2003 and 2004 I think the original purpose was to let people know how close to the End User the registration on a block of IP addresses was. If my memory is correct, the org-type was introduced after it was felt that status attribute values like "ALLOCATED-BY-IANA" or "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR" would overburden the status attribute syntax unnecessarily. Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? If not, maybe we just need two values: REGISTRY for IANA, RIRs, LIRs, TLDs and Tier 1 ENUM operators and NON-REGISTRY for everyone else. However, if people really find the hierarchical distinctions in the current org-type values useful, maybe we need some additional granularity for the different kinds of domain registries? If the extra granularity is useful, perhaps we need to allow organisations to have multiple org-type values? That's probably preferable to having multiple objects for a single organisation. Thoughts? -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
On Oct 03, leo vegoda <leo@ripe.net> wrote:
Do people find org-type values like IANA, RIR, LIR and so on useful? No. What would be the point?
-- ciao, Marco
ENUM-REGISTRY or any other terms is good, but, I think it would be better to follow the hierarchy model. Having REGISTRY at the top and more specific label such as org-detail: to describe the what kind of registry as a child. Alireza Antoin Verschuren wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 09:35, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I would like this list to be extended with the term REGISTRY.
I will note the issue tomorow in the ENUM WG, but need consensus to take place here, so please comment either here or tomorrow in the ENUM WG session. I strongly support the idea of having a new organisation type to describe ENUM "registries".
I was actually going to sugest ENUM-REGISTRY as org type. But RIPE NCC told me they'd favoured the term REGISTRY, probably so they could also use it for other registries not active in the RIR world. Perhaps they have the intention to sell their database to registration organisation for car license plates or whatever. Would thy then need to introduce another org-type ? (License-plate-REGISTRY). So should I change the proposal to be ENUM-REGISTRY ?
Antoin Verschuren
Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands
T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/
Alireza Saleh написано 04.10.2006 12:23:44:
ENUM-REGISTRY or any other terms is good, but, I think it would be better to follow the hierarchy model. Having REGISTRY at the top and more specific label such as org-detail: to describe the what kind of registry as a child.
I think, it's good idea: REGISTRY-IANA REGISTRY-RIR REGISTRY-NIR REGISTRY-LIR REGISTRY-ENUM REGISTRY-OTHER NON-REGISTRY WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy "VimpelCom" JSC DM3740-RIPE
Dmitriy, all - Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
Alireza Saleh написано 04.10.2006 12:23:44:
ENUM-REGISTRY or any other terms is good, but, I think it would be better to follow the hierarchy model. Having REGISTRY at the top and more specific label such as org-detail: to describe the what kind of registry as a child.
I think, it's good idea:
REGISTRY-IANA REGISTRY-RIR REGISTRY-NIR REGISTRY-LIR REGISTRY-ENUM REGISTRY-OTHER NON-REGISTRY
WBR,
Dmitry Menzulskiy "VimpelCom" JSC DM3740-RIPE
I believe we should keep things as simple as possible - and according to what's been discussed here on the list and during the session last week, the proposed "OTHER" seems to address everybody's need. Having said that, I'd like to reiterate Niall's call of Wed 4 Oct 2006, 15:07 UTC: === I will declare consensus in the ENUM WG unless objections to Antoin's proposal are posted on the ENUM WG mailing list before 12:00 UTC on Thursday, 18 October 2006. === Best regards, Carsten
On 9 Oct 2006, at 15:48, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote:
Alireza Saleh написано 04.10.2006 12:23:44:
ENUM-REGISTRY or any other terms is good, but, I think it would be better to follow the hierarchy model. Having REGISTRY at the top and more specific label such as org-detail: to describe the what kind of registry as a child. I think, it's good idea: REGISTRY-IANA REGISTRY-RIR REGISTRY-NIR REGISTRY-LIR REGISTRY-ENUM REGISTRY-OTHER NON-REGISTRY WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy "VimpelCom" JSC DM3740-RIPE
I believe we should keep things as simple as possible - and according to what's been discussed here on the list and during the session last week, the proposed "OTHER" seems to address everybody's need.
Actually, we MUST keep things as simple as possible. We're dealing with a real, existing database, not with a design exercise. Antoin's proposal is what's on the table: 'OTHER' in place of 'NON- REGISTRY'. Discussion of what would be "better" or a "good idea" is out of scope. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group
participants (8)
-
alireza saleh -
Antoin Verschuren -
Carsten Schiefner -
Dmitriy V Menzulskiy -
leo vegoda -
md＠Linux.IT -
Niall O'Reilly -
Ondřej Surý