Interim IP registration proposal

From: jwarnica@ns.sympatico.ca (Jeff Warnica)
To: "Mark Rushton" <Mark@chebucto.ns.ca>
Cc: <ccn-ip@chebucto.ns.ca>, <ccn-editors@chebucto.ns.ca>, <ccn-tech@chebucto.ns.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:48:47 -0300
Importance: Normal
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <ccn-ip-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects

> Also, you wrote:
> >However, this discussion has been centered around keeping or
> getting rid of
> >the IPDB. And this is neither the question we should be asking, nor the
> >paths we should be taking.
>
> We are not asking this question.  The IPDB stays - that's a decision
> made by the Board.  The Tech team is now tasked with working out a
> suitable modification + interface that jointly accesses both NameDB
> and IPDB to provide the functionality that has been identified months
> ago.

If your not asking that question, why are you anwsering it?

Why do you want the IPDB? Why do you not want the features that the IPDB
provides? I dont understand the attachement to the IPDB. Attachements to the
features I can see, however I have never seen conclusivly wha tthose
fearures are.

The list of features provided was what the office wanted. And we have a
solution for that: put everting in the namedb.

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects