To:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>
Date:
Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:50:03 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<3AD2B547.8777F22E@knipp.de>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Issues on 3.4.9 Object Information Query
At 9:24 AM +0200 4/10/01, Klaus Malorny wrote: >"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >> >> OK, now I think I understand, and I think this is something that the WG >> needs to chew on for a bit because it gets close to a topic that I raised in >> the protocol design team report: does it make sense for a provisioning >> protocol to provide abstract relationship reporting services? > >I think it does. Why? These are fairly separate functions. The set of capabilities currently defined within provreg are all basically required for object registration and provisioning. The capability you're talking about is more useful for "maintenance, database synchronisation, error detection etc." as you mention below. It seems like we could handle the separate functions and purposes through separate mechanisms. > > I submit that it's not a good idea for a _provisioning_ protocol to provide >> a query service to (as an example) list all of the domains delegated to a >> particular name server, or all of the domains for which I happen to be a >> contact. > >This function is very useful for maintenance, database synchronisation, error >detection etc. as I mentioned earlier. I agree that this function should not >be a "standard" function, i.e., the normal query should not report the reverse >references, as a name server may be used by thousands of domains and this >would increase processing time and message size. It should be done either as >an option or as a separate request. I think you may under-appreciate just how much this functionality may increase processing time and message size. We (register.com) have about three million domain names on our name servers. Right now, there's only a few hundred thousand on any given name server, but our goal is to get them all on the same set of name servers. I know that other organizations have very large numbers of domain names associated with individual name servers; likewise, there are some contacts associated with many domains. Do we really want to be returning data sets of this size through a provisioning protocol? We need a way to get information on object associations, but it doesn't belong in provreg. Jordyn -- Jordyn A. Buchanan jordyn@register.com Futurist +1.212.798.9262 Register.com http://www.register.com/