Re: Issues on 3.4.9 Object Information Query

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

"Jordyn A. Buchanan" wrote:
> 
> At 9:24 AM +0200 4/10/01, Klaus Malorny wrote:
>
> >>[...]

> >I think it does.
> 
> Why?  These are fairly separate functions.  The set of capabilities
> currently defined within provreg are all basically required for
> object registration and provisioning.  The capability you're talking
> about is more useful for "maintenance, database synchronisation,
> error detection etc." as you mention below.  It seems like we could
> handle the separate functions and purposes through separate
> mechanisms.
> 

Just think of the following "conversation":

  Client: delete domain blabla.tld
  Server: deletion denied. Object still in use.

and now? What are you doing now in the case that *you* think that the domain
is *not* in use? Do you want to pay for the domain until you get a database
dump end of next month or quarter revealing the problem?

I don't know whether it is possible for a different registrar to register a
name server below a certain domain (I know it's not possible under NSI's
system, and it is always a pain -- sorry Scott). If so, situations with
unknown references could easily appear.

> >> [...]
> >
> >This function is very useful for maintenance, database synchronisation, error
> >detection etc. as I mentioned earlier. I agree that this function should not
> >be a "standard" function, i.e., the normal query should not report the reverse
> >references, as a name server may be used by thousands of domains and this
> >would increase processing time and message size. It should be done either as
> >an option or as a separate request.
> 
> I think you may under-appreciate just how much this functionality may
> increase processing time and message size.  We (register.com) have
> about three million domain names on our name servers.  Right now,
> there's only a few hundred thousand on any given name server, but our
> goal is to get them all on the same set of name servers.  I know that
> other organizations have very large numbers of domain names
> associated with individual name servers; likewise, there are some
> contacts associated with many domains.  Do we really want to be
> returning data sets of this size through a provisioning protocol?  We
> need a way to get information on object associations, but it doesn't
> belong in provreg.
> 

As I mentioned above, I don't underestimate it. Although it is not a nice way
to solve the problem, there is still the possibility to truncate the output to
a reasonable size. Some databases even have extensions to SQL to limit the
number of reported rows. So there is always a solution.

> Jordyn
> 


regards,

Klaus Malorny


___________________________________________________________________________
     |       |
     | 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