RE: Handling of External Host Objects: Single vs. Multi Copy Solutions (was: in the context of domain transfer)

["Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>]

Jen,

Please see my comments below. Thanks!

--Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Wagner [mailto:jwagner@key-systems.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 5:50 AM
To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Handling of External Host Objects: Single vs. Multi Copy
Solutions (was: in the context of domain transfer)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:37 AM
Subject: RE: Handling of External Host Objects: Single vs. Multi Copy
Solutions (was: in the context of domain transfer)


...
> (7) Internal-to-external. Suppose ISP X has an internal host sponsored by
R
> that is being used as a nameserver of other domains. Now X wants to
replace
> that with an external host. There are two cases to consider:
> (a) R already has a private copy of the external host. Then R cannot
rename
> the internal host to the external host. Instead, R will have to update
each
> domain one-by-one that uses the internal host as nameserver.
> (b) R does not have a private copy of the external host. R can rename the
> internal host to the external host without any problem since it is the
> sponsoring registrar, and all domains sponsored by R that are using the
> internal host as nameserver now points to the external host.
> In both cases, domains sponsored by other registrars that use the internal
> host as nameserver will have to be updated one-by-one. To make things even
> worst, in the case of 7(b), before these updates are completed, domains in
> other registrars will be pointing to private copy of external host in R.
> This violates the very principle of the multi-copy model!
...

Hong,

Just thought about your point 7(b):

Registrar R1 creates domain dom1.tld
Registrar R1 creates host ns1.dom1.tld (internal host)
Registrar R1 updates domain dom1.tld to use nameserver ns1.dom1.tld
(internal)
Registrar R2 creates domain dom2.tld with nameserver ns1.dom1.tld (internal)
so far, its seems to be ok:
----
dom1.tld managed by R1 has nameserver ns1.dom1.tld
dom2.tld managed by R2 has nameserver ns1.dom1.tld
----

now we apply Scenario 7(b):
Registrar R1 renames host ns1.dom1.tld (internal) to ns.dom.ext(,R1)
(external)

What does the Registry DB look like now?
----
dom1.tld managed by R1 has nameserver ns.dom.ext(,R1) (external)

What happens with dom2.tld? Three possibilities:
1. dom2.tld managed by R2 has nameserver ns1.dom1.tld (internal)
2. dom2.tld managed by R2 has nameserver ns.dom.ext(,R1) (external)
3. dom2.tld managed by R2 has nameserver ns.dom.ext(,R2) (external)
----

(1.) should not be possible, because R1 removed the internal host
ns1.dom1.tld by renaming it.
(2.) should not be possible, because ns.dom.ext(,R1) must not be accessible
by R2.
(3.) should not be possible, because this would mean that R1 created an
external host object ns.dom.ext(,R2) in the repository of R2.

Or did I get anything wrong?

<HL>
Your breakdown of the scenario is excellent. Thanks for doing that. 

It seems that whether (2.) is possible or not is _not_ specified in the
current EPP protocol. As such I viewed that as a server policy. 7(b) in my
case allows one registrar to use another registrar's private copy, while
your (2.) does not. We were both right on that sense. In fact, the server
policy in (2.) makes the multi-copy model even less attractive since now
either dom2.tld loses DNS service from ns.dom.ext or that the server will
have to deny the initial request for changing an internal host to and an
external host. What do you think?
</HL>

Best regards,

Jens Wagner
Key-Systems GmbH