Re: [ietf-provreg] References for Today's Host Object Discussion

[Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br>]

Scott,

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:56:29PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > This looks good. It would be helpful to see the descriptive text you 
> > mentioned (and some example requests) to confirm that I'm 
> > understanding 
> > what you mean, exactly.
> 
> Text:
> 
> "Name server hosts for domain delegation can be specified as either
> references to existing host objects or as domain attributes that describe a
> host machine.  A server operator MUST use one name server specification form
> consistently.  A server operator that announces support for host objects
> MUST NOT allow domain attributes to describe a name server host machine.  A
> server operator that does not announce support for host objects MUST allow
> domain attributes to describe a name server host machine."
> 
> The idea here is that it's a bad idea to allow some domain objects in a
> repository to reference host objects and others to use domain attributes
> that describe a host machine.  Using one form consistently will make
> implementation and server management easier.
> 

This text is perfect for .br and solves all the problems I've tried to
explain at SF. If this moves forward we'll not need to use an
extension describing a different domain mapping or another crude hack,
so I'm all in favor of this.

> Example host object references:
> 
> <domain:ns>
>   <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
>   <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
> </domain:ns>
> 
> Example domain attributes that describe host machines:
> 
> <domain:ns>
>   <domain:hostAttr>
>     <domain:hostName>ns1.example.com</domain:hostName>
>   </domain:hostAttr>

Here there is a missing <domain:hostAttr> or I'm misunderstanding
something ?

>     <domain:hostName>ns1.example.net</domain:hostName>
>     <domain:hostAddr ip="v4">192.0.2.2</domain:hostAddr>
>   </domain:hostAttr>
> </domain:ns>
> 
> Ed: so when can we move forward with document edits for this and the privacy
> proposal?
> 
> -Scott-

Fred