RE: "External" hosts in EPP

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Manley [mailto:dmanley@tucows.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: Klaus Malorny
> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: "External" hosts in EPP
> 
> 
> I like the flexibility this change would offer.  Should the spec should 
> say that the two forms cannot mix?  ie. if host mapping is used (as 
> stated in the server's greeting) then "in-zone" host objects cannot be 
> implicitly created through domain create or update commands.

My intention was that a server operator would select one form or the other
for in-zone host management, and yes, no host objects would be created
implicitly.  You either do host objects or you don't, and the domain mapping
would provide elements that let the client do delegations either to existing
host objects or to named hosts.

> And for out-of-zone hosts... after being created in a domain create or 
> update command, should a <host:info> work these hosts?  I personally 
> would still like the registry to create host objects implicitly for 
> these out-of-zone hosts -- mostly to facilitate mass updates of domains 
> using a particular host.  Beside, it wouldn't surprise me if a registry 
> that is already handing domain-host relationships via RDMS normalized 
> table relations would implicitly create host records and relations for 
> out-of-zone hosts.

I'd say that no explicit host object means no <host:info>, no <host:update>,
etc.  Management for such object-less hosts would have to be done through
the domain object that identifies the host(s).  If we implicitly or
explicitly create objects for out-of-zone hosts, don't we still have the
object management issue that prompted this thread in the first place?

-Scott-