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

["Jörg Bauer/Denic" <bauer@denic.de>]

owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se wrote on 10.04.2003 23:17:07:

> 
> 
> I have been under the assumption that we were talking about 
> provisioning domain names, yes, provreg is chartered to be more 
> general but in the short term we've focused on domain names, hence 
> the only DNS records would be NS's and glue for the time being.
> 
> Would excluding MX's (et.al.) be too shortsighted for our 
> extensibility (E of EPP)?  Would only considering NS's and glue be 
> sufficient for EPP 1.0?

May be it was not clear:
I donīt talk of including MX RR into the protocol, iīm talkink of the 
possibility to put "whatever you want" into the protocol.

The idea behind it is that it doesnīt forbit you to just use NS and (glue) 
A Records, itīs up to the policy, but it also alows you to store other 
records into the zone.
Just think about DS Records (for DNSSEC). Maybe it makes sence to get 
these records too.

Of cause you can develop extensions for all this kind of stuff, but i see 
a BIG problem with interoperability if al lot of Registries are going to 
have their own extensions.

I also see the  drawback of this approach: the records arenīt "well 
defined". You have a name, a type and all the rest. But to have some more 
level of flexibility inside the protocoll, i prefer also to have such kind 
of mapping.

Maybe we can put two type of mapping inside:
1. a pure DNS+Glue mapping
2. a "whatever you want, put into DNS" mapping

>