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

["Jens Wagner" <jwagner@key-systems.net>]

Hong,

Regarding 7(b), I don't think it is a good idea to let one registrar use
another registrar's private copy of an host object, that's why we call it
private. It would also be inconsistent with the return values of the host
related check and info commands.

Regaring the server policy in (2.):
1. When dom2.tld loses DNS service from ns.dom.ext, this will eventually
render the domain status of dom2.tld from active to inactive. Should
Registrar R1 be allowed/able to deactivate domains from Registrar R2?
2. When the server has to deny a request for changing an internal host to an
external host, how will Registrar R1 be able to know the reason, and how
will R1 be able to resolve that?

Best regards,

-jens

----- Original Message -----
From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: Handling of External Host Objects: Single vs. Multi Copy
Solutions (was: in the context of domain transfer)


> 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
>
>