[57550] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: whois for just prefix list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joao Luis Silva Damas)
Mon Apr 14 11:06:26 2003
In-Reply-To: <20030414143801.GK10427@ipeng.viatel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:05:36 +0200
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 15:38 +0100 14/4/03, Russell Heilling wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:47:43AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>> let's see
>> o we have massive heavy servers
>> o the most basic/frequent operation requires a massive heavy client
>>
>> what's wrong with this picture?
>
>You've hit the nail on the head there. The lack of a uniform query syntax
>across the registries requires intelligence in the client that would
>otherwise not be required.
Some of us think that respecting the installed base and continuing
with the same query syntax was the way to go. Others had different
opinions.
>
>Defining standard query language syntax / information presentation format
>across the registries is exactly why the IETF CRISP working group exists.
>Lets hope that as a few of their I-Ds get onto the RFC standards track we
>can finally get a registry structure that is so easy to use that people
>start keeping their objects up to date ;)
How you keep your objects up to date is actually standard.
Whether you keep your objects up to date or not has nothing to do
with CRISP or any other standard but rather with perceived value,
enforcement by your upstream and laziness (I won't detail the
relative weight of the factors).
Joao
