Re: EPP statuses and other questions

[Michael Graff <Michael_Graff@isc.org>]

Michael Graff <Michael_Graff@isc.org> writes:

> I've read almost every post on that page, and a few from other pages.

And after reading much more, I feel the mistake is that there are two
handles for objects now, and that is becomming a pain in trying to
implement EPP.

(0)  ROIDs are not well thought out, nor well integrated into the 07
     draft at least.

(1)  A handle (like FOO1-ISC) is not self-describing.  Is that a contact
     handle, a domain handle, or what?

(2)  Part of the handle namespace is client-chosen, part is registry-chosen.
     On contacts, the local (and thus the global) identifiers are chosen
     by the registrant, where domain and other ROIDs are chosen by the
     registry.  This means the registry cannot fix (1) easily.

     Example:  Suppose a contact, "FLAME1" is created, and assigned
     ROID of FLAME1-ISC.  Now, later, that contact is deleted.
     Suppose a domain is created, "FLAME.ORG", and it is 
     assigned the ROID of "FLAME1-ISC".  Now, that is no longer a
     valid contact ROID.  All external references will be totally
     confused.  WORSE, since domains and contacts can have passwords,
     would:

        <authinfo roid="FLAME1-ISC">password</authinfo>

     allow me to modify other domains?  After all, FLAME1-ISC may be
     listed as an external technical contact for FOO.COM, and I can
     get the password right for the domain-versio of FLAME1-ISC.

(3)  The various <create> commands need to return the ROID an object was
     assigned.  As things are now, I need to look up the contact using
     <info> before I can use it in an <authinfo roid="whatever"> tag.

(4)  Using two names, one which is (in the contact case) derrived from the
     other, seems pretty silly.  If you're going to do that, use only the
     global (or use the URN concept to refer to external data,
     mentioned in the mail archives and in my last post.)

(5)  The -FOO suffix doesn't really fit with the new world order of
     URIs, URNs, and is different than how XML, the EPP protocol of
     choice (yuck) would do it.

(6)  EPP is extensible.  Once other issues, such as how to notify
     referrers of data, or even a good use for this sort of thing is
     found, a draft can be written to extend EPP to handle
     registry-side ROIDs.  Until then, I at least feel they complicate
     an already complicated protocol, and should be removed for now.
     Additionally, making it OPTIONAL gives the registry more
     flexability into if it WANTS external references or not.

--Michael