To:
"Andrew Sullivan" <andrew@ca.afilias.info>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:24:08 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcWidPiMuRmUxlo9S7WqKf/NyyaxCQAAKp3g
Thread-Topic:
[ietf-provreg] Comments: draft-sullivan-epp-experience
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] Comments: draft-sullivan-epp-experience
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se > [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:58 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Comments: draft-sullivan-epp-experience [snip] > The "linked" status doesn't strictly prohibit deletion itself; > instead, 3732 has this: "A host name object MUST NOT be deleted if > the host object is associated with any other object." Similarly, 3733 > has this: "A contact object SHOULD NOT be deleted if it is associated > with other known objects." I can see an argument for preserving the > latter; but the former is surely a policy decision, and ought to be > left to the repository operator. > > I realise that this proposal may be more controversial than the one > to unhook the prohibitiond from the "pending" states. But even > though this is expressing a policy that is a good idea -- don't allow > deletions of an object if anything else refers to it -- it's still a > policy, and therefore something that a repository operator might want > to change in some circumstance we haven't imagined yet. Since the > prohibitions are already possible using some other status, there's no > reason to use this status to enforce the prohibitions. (I think the > linked status is worth keeping, because one might use it as the basis > of policy.) While I agree that this isn't a protocol interoperability issue, remember why the text is there: deleting a host object (or a domain object that has subordinate host objects) has the potential to *BREAK* DNS resolution. Some poor operator that's not a party to the registry-registrar relationship doesn't find out about such changes until something disappears from a zone and things stop working. I'm not averse to softening the MUST NOT to a SHOULD NOT as long as we explain that things can really break if it's done without consideration of object relationships. -Scott-