Re: "External" hosts in EPP

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>]

As I indicated in Salt Lake, I'm not a very big fan of "freedom of 
expression" for freedom of expression's sake.  This is the sort of 
option that makes it harder to interoperate and doesn't gain any 
additional functionality.

If someone (Cathy, Klaus?) has any reasons why it is actually 
beneficial to have the name server as an attribute as opposed to an 
object, I'll reconsider my stance.  I think all I've heard to this 
point is "that's how some registries do it already".  That's not 
really an argument to explain whether it's good behavior, though. 
Some registries allow out-of-zone glue, which we decided was a bad 
idea long ago.  The change to EPP is already going to require some 
change in how registrars interact with registries; I simply don't get 
how the requirement to create a host object before using it is 
particularly damaging.

On the flip side, if some registries require host object creation and 
some don't, this means registrars have to create substantially 
different logic for how they register domains in some TLDs (or IP 
registries) than they do in others.  That's not good.

Jordyn


At 6:51 PM -0500 12/17/01, Daniel Manley wrote:
>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-