Inconsistent NIC handles

Hi David,

> David Conrad writes :
> 
> Theoretically speaking:
> 
> if( $suffix eq "RIPE" ){
> 	`whois -h whois.ripe.net $arg`;
> } elsif( length( $suffix ) == 2 ){
> 	`whois -h whois.apnic.net $arg`;
> } else {
> 	`whois -h internic.net $arg`;
> }

I know, but one exception (Internic) is probably nicer ;-).

> >And what if you have more registries in one country ?!? 
> 
> Again, theoretically, this would be an internal issue within the
> country.  One possible solution would be to have a second level (like,
> oh say, the DNS), e.g., XX1-Y-TV.

OK, but this is something I don't disagree with, I say only:
"name of registry should be the same name as the suffix for the nic handle"
The name for the registry can easily be a DNS like name ...

> Personally, I think the whole idea of handles suck.  However,

But we have them right now ...
It is still better then getting 100 people with the same name after a
query (you know all that Davids ;-)).

> I feel it is long past time for the architecture of handles to be
> completely redone.  As an off-the-cuff proposal not having thought
> about this in any great detail, but stealing the general concept from
> your imperious leader (:-)):

You might be right here (Exercise for the reader: which part of the
paragraph am I talking about ;-))

> Use the DNS.  Have handles.net (or somesuch) allocated and allocate
> subdomains for APNIC (and APNIC's assorted sub-registries, underneath
> APNIC's subdomain), RIPE, and InterNIC.  When you have a handle (say,
> XX1.AP), the whois server appends .handles.net, does a DNS lookup and
> gets the IP address of the whois server where the record associated
> with the handle is stored.  The rest is left as an excersize or the
> reader (so I can just handwave around all the obvious problems (like
> InterNIC's huge number of handles) :-)).
> 
> Comments?

No comments (yet). I will keep this proposal in mind.

Kind regards,

David Kessens