RE: [Epp-rtk-devel] RE: ROID Placement

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
>[mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
>Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:02 AM
>To: Hollenbeck, Scott
>Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; epp-rtk-devel; brunner@nic-naa.net
>Subject: Re: [Epp-rtk-devel] RE: ROID Placement 
>

[snip]

>As Ayesha pointed out, the derivation is complicated by this change of roid
>placement, and that alone should give pause. As you pointed out, this means
>we delta the requirements draft, not a big deal, and get the roid
functionally
>placed correctly. Clearly, from the registry use cases for requirements, a
>global identifier is not optional.

A requirements change is needed only if we decide to remove ROIDs
completely.  That's certainly an option, and maybe it's one we need to
explore before re-examining the placement issue.

Let's assume that we prefer to keep them.  Dan Manley, another implementer,
didn't allude to any complications in his response sent yesterday.  I have a
VeriSign implementer who also feels that it's not a problem.  However, if
it's an issue for anyone it's a good topic for discussion.

Would it be better if the only place a ROID was returned is in the object
data returned in the response to an <info> command?  If so, I can live with
that.

<Scott/>