At 07:38 AM 7/17/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Absolutely not -
>
>This has been on our list for a long time, and is coming close to getting
>worked on. You, can help by providing your thoughts on how it should be done.
Good to hear, it was sounding bad for a minute there. :)
>Specifically:
>
>- should we introduce handles that would work across profiles
>(essentially, you can assign a role to a handle, and then modify that
>handle as necessary)
Definitely.
>- if we were to increase the power of certain roles (technical contact
>control of NS's for example), how should we introduce this? How should we
>deal with legacy roles of this type - extend them the same power
>automagically, or require that they specifically ask for the new role type
Yes. Automagically.
>- how important would providing support for existing handles at other
>registries be? would it be worth supporting this considering the large
>complexities it would introduce to development?
Not at all.
>- what works well now, what stinks, and what must you have in a new system?
We don't have handles, can't update OUR information on profiles we don't
have control over... That's the stinky part and needs to be in the new
system. Regardless of what access we have to a profile, if it contains one
of our handles we should be able to update the information. Once and globally.
--
Phillip Beazley
FutureSights -- Website Hosting, Development & E-commerce
Visit http://www.futuresights.com/ or call 727-578-9600.
