RE: Design teams

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Here's the info from the protocol design team.

<Scott/>

New Requirement Issues
- Base Protocol
-- Auth IDs for all object updates
-- Pass-through element
- Common to all Objects
-- "handle" aka Registry Object Identifier (roid)
- Domain
-- Optional registration period and period units
- Host (no issues noted so far)
- Contact
-- Data purpose identification

Base Protocol Design Issues I
- Client-server vs. peer-to-peer
-- Don't preclude client-server
- <ping> Command Name
-- <check> or <is>?
- Query feature to pull notifications
- Client <hello> for connectionless transport
- Command/response pipelining
- <renew> command vs. <update> option

Base Protocol Design Issues II
- Auth ID for transfers vs. other updates
-- Non-sponsor use only for transfer request
- Object relationship queries
-- Good or bad in a provisioning protocol?

Common Object Design Issues
- Globally unique ROIDs for all objects
-- <local part>-<globally unique part>?
- Non-Unicode charset identification
-- May need to store non-Unicode identifiers

Domain Object Design Issues
- Status flags per registry policy or protocol?

Host Object Design Issues
- None identified (yet)

Contact Object Design Issues
- Add extension attribute for E.164 numbers
-- <contact:voice x="1234">+1.7035555555</contact:voice>
- Data purpose definition
-- No proposals yet
- Dual charset representation
-- Also TBD

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Lewis [mailto:lewis@tislabs.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:27 AM
>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Cc: lewis@tislabs.com
>Subject: Design teams
>
>
>First, I would like to set a target date of March 30 for the design teams
>to submit to the mailing list a set of issues and opinions (so far) so the
>WG can provide some feedback.  This isn't intended to be a deadline for the
>design teams, but a midpoint check on progress.  (The "set of issues" can
>be similar to what was put on screen yesterday, but this time in text.)