Re: Transfer Notification a requirement?

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>]

At 01:18 PM 2/9/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
>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).

I agree with James that 3.7 still contains some policy language.  Can we 
just lose 3.7 [8]?  That's a policy issue.  Everything else just describes 
capabilities that the protocol should have.  The protocol *should* include 
a capability for the losing registrar to stop the transfer because some 
registries do this.  If your registry doesn't act this way, then you don't 
have to pay attention.

>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.

This is already handled.  Everything is extensible and 3.7 [4] says "The 
protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar authorization to 
transfer an object."  It's up to the registry to determine what that 
authorization is.

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

True.  I think we should lose 3.7 [8].  Then there's no policy in 3.7.

Jordyn