RE: "External" hosts in EPP

[Cathy Murphy <cathym@arin.net>]

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

> 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?  

Yes.

> Is anyone interested in implementing a no-host-object server?  If not,
> it doesn't seem worth adding the choice.

I don't believe it is fair as a non-implementer (currently) to argue too
vehemently one way or the other, but I will point out that we (ARIN) are
going to a host-attribute model. This makes a lot of sense for the host
names we track for in-addr.arpa, but I don't know that the argument is
quite as strong for most other domains.

Even if it's decided to stick with a host-object only mode, we'd probably
make this part of an RIR-type extension down the road. 

Also, I'm wondering why you don't think a mixed-mode server is feasible.
It seems straight-forward to require either the host-object or the
host-attribute for a particular domain, but to prohibit both.

-Cathy

> 
> -Scott- 
>