Re: Is is mandatory for an object to belong to a registrar?

["'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 07:27:53AM -0500,
 Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote 
 a message of 57 lines which said:

> The model is one where objects are managed by some client.  If you're asking
> if the <contact:clID> is optional in an <info> response, it's not.  If
> you're suggesting that it should be, I would disagree.  Someone or something
> has to be the authoritative management agent for an object.

This is not how all registries work at the present time. For instance,
in the RIPE-NCC database (an address registry for Europe/MiddleEast),
every object can have 1 to N "maintainers" and every maintainer has
full rights over the object. This is very convenient because it
allows, for instance, a network provider to add its client and itself
as maintainers of contact objects: each one can make a change of, for
instance, a phone number.

True, an object is created by some client but it can be modified by
several "actors".

Now, if the RIPE-NCC wants to use the EPP contact mapping, what will
they put as clID? (The crID will be the creator, a LIR - Local
Internet Registry, typically a network provider.)