Re: Transfer Notification a requirement?

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

I would like to point out again that this is one area where specific
design and policy which leak into requirements.

The problem here is that Object Transfer must both registrars to agree.
And to prevent abuse, it is policy decision that such transfer who
require giving the losing registrar to stop the transfer. (In other
words, it is the SERVER which is suppose to keep track of this, not the
protocol).

This problem _could_ be solved in another way, ie, by having
authorization access directly on objects. This allows the
owner/registrant to do whatever he wants with the object including
transfer so long he can provide the appropriate authorization.

There are many ways to solve a problem. IMHO, requirements should be
independent of any design.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayesha Damaraju" <ayesha.damaraju@neustar.com>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:59 AM
Subject: Transfer Notification a requirement?


>
> Considering below two requirements from GRRP_reqs_06
>
> 3.7 Object Transfer
>
> [6] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the original
> sponsoring registrar to approve or reject a requested object transfer.
> ...............
> ...........
>
> [8] Object Transfer requests MUST NOT be acted upon without giving the
> losing registrar an opportunity to respond to the request...
>
>
> Unless [8] implies that a notification needs to be sent to the losing
> registrar to approve or reject giving them an opportunity - In which
case it
>
> needs to be clear, even otherwise notifying the sponsoring registrar
to
> approve or reject the transfer should be a requirement.
>
> -Ayesha
>