To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:21:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<3DE3D0D6.1030403@tucows.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Handling of External Host Objects
Dan, Scott, and Janusz, As the person who re-opened this topic on the list, I would also like to see a concrete proposal to get a closure on this topic. It looks like the WG is leaning towards reverting back to the single-copy model, but is still unclear of how it should be done. Whether external hosts are treated as an independent object or an attribute to a domain object, the end result seems to be the same: they are single-copy, read-only entities by registrars once they are created in the registry. This is the only sensible way to avoid sponsorship monoply by any registrar who first created an external host. There are pros and cons for either approach. The attribute approach is conceptually cleaner, but incurs changes to many EPP commands such as create, update, info, etc. The object approach is not as clean, but it minimizes syntatical changes to EPP commands and keep the host handling APIs similar. In the end, it really boils down to the matter of taste. From implementation point of view, the registry will create a DB object, be it an attribute or object at the EPP level. --Hong --- Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com> wrote: > Another good compromise for external hosts. Looks > like it avoids > ("settles"?) some of the ambiguous ownership issues > for external hosts. > It also keeps the domain transfer cans of worms > locked and sealed. > > Does anyone have meetings minutes for the discussion > on external hosts > in Atlanta? > > Dan > > > Hollenbeck, Scott a écrit: > > >>To alleviate the problems mentioned above let me > propose the following > >>changes > >>to epp host and domain mapping documents: > >> > >> > > > >If I understand this correctly you're suggesting a > move back to the way > >things were (more or less, with some limits to > address the issues) before > >the per-client thing came up, right? I like the > idea of consistency and > >simplicity -- what do others think? > > > >-Scott- > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Manley > Tucows, Inc. > Toronto, Canada > dmanley@tucows.com > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com