RE: Issues on 3.4.9 Object Information Query

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de]
>Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:48 AM
>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Subject: Issues on 3.4.9 Object Information Query
>
>
>
>
>I am missing functions that clearly report the relationships between the
>objects. Although I assume that forward references are reported on [1], [2]
>and [3], I would like to have this expressed clearly. In addition, reverse
>references cannot be determined by the current version of the requirements
>document, obviously.
>
>Therefore, I would like to have the following additions in the protocol*:
>
>---8<---
>3.4.9[0] (to be inserted before [1])
>
>All object information queries MUST report all references to other objects.
>This MUST also include objects that are referenced implicitly, if the
>existance of the reference may affect the outcome of any operation.
>
>3.4.9[5]
>For any existing object the protocol MUST provide services to determine all
>reverse references, i.e. to list up the identifiers of those objects that
use
>the given object. This MUST also include objects that reference the given
>object implicitly (e.g. name servers that belong to a given domain), if the
>existance of the reference may affect the outcome of any operation (e.g.
>deletions). 
>
>---8<---

Good suggestions, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the
suggested new requirements.  What does [0] say that [5] doesn't?  I'm
inclined to add [5], but I'm not sure I see the need for [0] if we add [5].

<Scott/>