To:
"'Rick H Wesson'" <wessorh@ar.com>, "Damaraju, Ayesha" <ayesha.damaraju@neustar.com>
Cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, epp-rtk-devel <epp-rtk-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:24:08 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: ROID Placement
>-----Original Message----- >From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] >Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:31 PM >To: Damaraju, Ayesha >Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; epp-rtk-devel >Subject: Re: your mail > > > >Ayesha, > >I agree with your analysis but, i woud also like to understand what any >other object besides a contact needs a roid. Objects such as hosts and >domains are unique within a registry, maybe we should only have a ROID for >contacts? This all goes back to a lengthy requirements discussion about ROIDs and a decision that they were required for all objects. Personally I wouldn't complain if we agreed to get rid of them completely ;-), but if a new decision is made to associate them only with contacts we'd need to go back and change the requirements draft (no big deal), and then it would make perfect sense to put the ROID-specific stuff in the contact object mapping. <Scott/>