To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:42:04 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD603370399@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
> > Sorry, but I don't remember you suggesting anything other than the .de > model, and I don't recall you ever addressing how that model deals with bulk > updates efficiently. If you did, would you please point me to your proposal > in the list archives? > for example: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-08/msg00018.html > > Mow I'm getting even more confused. We've gone from the provisioning > perspective to the DNS resolution perspective, and as far as I'm concerned > those perspectives are independent. The provisioning system just needs to > ensure that the information needed by the resolution system is available for > proper deployment. > Glueing the host records to the domain they belong to (regarding the DNS hierarchy) is IMHO not a provisioning requirement. > BTW, EPP's host model does very clearly provide guidance to prevent cycles > (though I'm not sure of what you mean by "cycles") involving out-of-zone > hosts. From section 2.5 of the current host mapping: > Sorry for "cycles". Unfortunately, we don't have a short term for that cyclic nonresolvable dependency problem between two or more domains and their name servers, e.g. a.com -> ns.b.com, b.com -> ns.a.com. I never said that EPP would not have prevention of those cycles if all hosts are in-zone. > [...] > > -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