Re: Issues on 3.4.9 Object Information Query

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:

> 
> I understand, and I am not disputing that there is a need for this
> information.  We are disagreeing on the reporting/delivery method.
> 
> VeriSign (then NSI Registry) actually implemented this sort of
> reverse-relationship query service via the NSI RRP in the early days of the
> SRS test bed.  Requesting information about a name server would include a
> list of all domains delegated to the server.  It quickly became clear to us
> (with only six registrars) that this service was unworkable via the protocol
> due to serious server-side memory management and DB performance
> requirements, and we were working with the best commercial hardware and
> software available at the time.
> 
> I still believe that a different query protocol or offline reporting
> services is the most efficient way to provide the potentially large volume
> of information associated with contact and name server relational queries.
> However, if part of the problem is that it's not obvious when object
> relationships exist, would it be an acceptable compromise to make it
> completely obvious that there are existing object relationships?  For
> example, if a name server query returned the number of domain delegations,
> or a contact query returned the number of object associations, or if each
> had some kind of status value that indicated active associations?  Each
> option would provide explicit notice that there are relationships to be
> undone, eliminating the uncertainty before attempting a delete operation.
> 
> <Scott/>

Hi Scott,

there are still some misunderstandings. "Normal" queries should not return all
domains it is responsible for. I thought to include this only if the request
explicitly requests this information. Therefore the impact on performance
wouldn't be that great.

Nevertheless I don't think we get a full consensus on this topic. But to end
the discussion for now, I would be glad just to have some indicators that show
that an object is referenced by others and therefore cannot be deleted. As far
as I understand the e-mails, this is something that the discussion
participants could agree upon.


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