RE: "External" hosts in EPP

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@register.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:38 PM
> To: wessorh@ar.com; Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: RE: "External" hosts in EPP
> 
> 
> At 11:58 AM -0800 12/17/01, wessorh@ar.com wrote:
> >Scott,
> >
> >I'd agree that Asbjorn's proposal is reasonable one. OTOH, creating
> >objects for non-glue hosts seem counterintuitive, I'd prefer 
> that we did
> >not have too. If others favor consistency, i'll drop my objection.
> 
> Consistency is nice.  Asbjorn's proposal has the added advantage of 
> making it much easier to change from a host without glue to an 
> in-zone host with glue by simply updating the object as opposed to 
> changing each and every domain that you have associated with a 
> particular out-of-zone host.

OK, then, last concern:  I think I said something bogus when talking about
this at SLC.  I believe it was Sheer who asked if the intention was to allow
mixing of host-object and no-host-object modes, and I think I said "yes".
If I did, that's not what I meant to say.  My intention was to provide the
choice in the domain mapping such that a server could choose to implement
host objects (now with Asbjorn's suggested fix that some of you vaguely
remembered at the end of the discussion), or a server could choose to NOT
implement host objects and do delegations using name server info as domain
attributes.

Does anyone see any value in offering this choice?  Is anyone interested in
implementing a no-host-object server?  If not, it doesn't seem worth adding
the choice.

-Scott-