Re: "External" hosts in EPP

[Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>]

For the sake of freedom of expression, I guess it wouldn't hurt, but we 
would probably not use it -- there's too many advantage to using host 
objects.

Dan

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>>-----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-
>