RE: "External" hosts in EPP

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Scott,

I'm definately for what works. could you restate the proposal in clearer
terms. for out-of-zone hosts would every registrar still need to create a
host object? If so how is that easier, or is it just more consistant.

thanks

-rick



On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asbjorn.rrp@theglobalname.org
> > [mailto:asbjorn.rrp@theglobalname.org]
> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:56 PM
> > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> > Subject: "External" hosts in EPP
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > I am wondering if the following might be worth considering:
> >
> > a) For in-zone hosts, everything is as described in EPP-host-03.
> >
> > b) Out-of-zone hosts, on the other hand, are "private" to a
> > RegistrAR; they are registered on a RegistrAR basis and will
> > be invisible/un-referable for other RegistrARs.
>
> I need to bring this up again.  We talked about the "out of zone" host issue
> at the SLC session, but now I'm not sure if the alternative I described
> (first sent to the list by Rick Wesson [1]) is the best way to tackle this
> problem.  As I started to look at the needed I-D updates I did a chalk talk
> with some of my implementers, and they believe that Asbjorn's suggestion may
> be more efficient to operate and easier to implement as it keeps
> host-related protocol operations consistent.
>
> I didn't see any objections to Asbjorn's suggestion on the list, just Rick's
> alternative and related discussion.  If there _are_ objections, now would be
> a good time to raise them.
>
> -Scott-
> [1]
> http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-11/msg00001.html
>