To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:07:15 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60337038D@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021205
Subject:
Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > I (and again, others -- check the archives) continue to disagree with your > assertions of model deficiency, and when we pointed out the issues with > _your_ model (like the bulk update problem) you typically failed to respond. > That's not a sign of not trying to understand -- if anything, it's a clear > sign of trying to explore all of the issues in necessary detail. I'm not aware of any question that I left unanswered. In addition, you mix up my model and DENIC's current one. I once suggested a model that has the flexibility of DENIC (anyone can specify any name server, no separate relational model for in-zone and out-of-zone hosts) while having host objects. Both models allow the change of IP addresses of hosts used by multiple domains in a single request. My model additionally allows to even change the name of a host used as a name server in multiple domains in a single request. My model has a drawback regarding potential in-zone host name resolution cycles, but this problem is IMHO heavily overestimated and can be handled during zone file generation. A quick analyses of our domains shows that nearly none of our .info and .biz domains and only 2% of our .org domains fully rely on in-zone hosts. Even our com/net domains have a rate of less than 50%. This is surely not representative, and I expect that ccTLDs have a much higher rate > 95%. So depending on the registry, EPP's host model, where cycles involving out-of-zone hosts are not prevented, has little benefit to the operativeness of the DNS. If one takes the abilities of misconfigurations into account which are fully ignored by the current gTLD registries (contrary to many ccTLDs), this makes even less sense. Everything above I wrote at least once to the list and I don't want to discuss this in detail any longer. You said in a recent e-mail, that you don't want to make fundamential changes to the protocol at this point of progress, which is understandable to me. So if I ever have to use EPP on server side, I'm going to maltreat it until it fits my needs, whether it is recognizable as EPP afterwards or not. > > -Scott- regards, Klaus ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9 Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0