To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:00:16 +0200
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Issues on 3.4.5. Object Transfer
"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >---8<---
> >3.4.5[1] ...
> >
> >The registry MUST report the object identifiers of all objects that are
> >transferred along with the domain object.
> >
> >3.4.8[6]
> >
> >The protocol MUST provide services to determine all objects that would get
> >implicitly transferred on a transfer of a certain object.
> >---8<---
>
> Isn't this second requirement addressed in the "object query" requirement
> that you suggested in another message?
Yes, you are right. I wanted to keep the two proposals independent. The name
servers would be reported as implicit reverse references according to the
other proposal. The registrar could conclude that these name servers get
transferred also, but still there would not be a function that tells this
expressis verbis.
> I think that's a more appropriate
> place to list object associations vs. in the "does it exist" query. Could I
> also suggest a rewording of the first new requirement?:
>
> "The protocol MUST provide services to describe all objects, including
> associated objects, that are transferred as a result of an object transfer."
>
> We can't specify registry requirements in this document, and I think it
> better to make the requirement more general as opposed to specifically
> targeting domain object transfers.
Ok.
>
> <Scott/>
regards,
Klaus Malorny
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund
Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0