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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> > 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.)=

It would be helpful if you read and quoted the last part of my previous
message -- you can use the server/registry as the "client" if it allows
multiple actors to maintain an object.

-Scott-