To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Alexander Mayrhofer <axelm@nic.at>
Date:
Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:36:59 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<20060413141125.GB2122@afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] RFC3731: domain:roid in <info> response
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > It might be useful to clients over time, though: a domain name need > not be unique over time (whereas the roid is defined in such a way > that it ought to be). When the record is current, of course, the > sponsor could know what the roid is (because they had it originally, > and the object hasn't been removed from the repository). But it is > undoubtedly extremely useful for retrospective co-ordination for > client and server operators to be able to refer to different objects > of the same name by unique ids. Yep, that was the only use case that came to my mind - addressing a specific instance of a delegation instead of "the currently active one", eg. for retrieval of historic data of a ceased delegation (because the "name" would obviously address the current one). However, for that to work, also requests would need to allow using a roid instead of the domain name - and that is not the case (yet? ;). Anyways, points (especially about backwards compatibility) taken. now crafting a creative way to derive roid's from ENUM domain instances ;) cheers Alex