To:
shollenbeck@verisign.com
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
asbjorn.rrp@theglobalname.org
Date:
19 Dec 2001 12:27:48 -0000
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: "External" hosts in EPP
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:57:32 -0500 "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: >Doesn't giving an option to copy the hosts put us right into the same >situation where host objects can get created without the client explicitly >creating them? I _really_ think it's safer for the client to create >whatever hosts it needs before doing the transfer, and failing the transfer >request if a needed host hasn't been created. It's an extra step up front, >but it avoids other notification and synchronization steps post-transfer. The "copy option" _would_ mean that host objects might be created without the client explicitly creating them, but the registrar would agree that this should happen by explicitly specifying that he wants them copied. But I see the consistency issue here as well. Right now, there are no places in the protocol where objects are created implicitly, so it might not be worth introducing this now, with the "copy option". If registrars are happy with the extra step up front, I'm happy. :-) Asbjorn -- The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender by replying and delete this email so that it is not recoverable. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any retention, review, disclosure, distribution, copying, printing, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is strictly prohibited and without liability on our part.