RE: EPP statuses and other questions

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:32:44PM +0000,
> >  Michael Graff <Michael_Graff@isc.org> wrote 
> >  a message of 55 lines which said:
> > 
> > > (1)  A handle (like FOO1-ISC) is not self-describing.  Is 
> that a contact
> > >      handle, a domain handle, or what?
> > 
> > I see it a a "registry policy" issue. Some will have a global
> > namespace for handles (with the risks you explain) and some 
> will have
> > separate namespaces for contacts and hosts.
> 
> According to the current draft, this isn't possible.  For 
> hosts and for
> domains, sure.  However, for clients, the registrant (not 
> even the registrar
> according to how people say they'll be used!) chooses the local name,
> and therefore the GLOBAL name as well, since the global ROID 
> is defined
> as the local_part-REGISTRY

Where in the current drafts do you see requirements for how the local part
of the ROID is defined as you've described?  There's _nothing_ in the
contact draft that says that the local part MUST be the contact ID, and the
core draft says this (section 2.8):

"Specific identifier values are a matter of repository policy, but they
SHOULD be constructed according to the following algorithm:

a) Divide the provisioning repository world into a number of object
repository classes.

b) Each repository within a class is assigned an identifier that is
maintained by IANA.

(c) Each repository is responsible for assigning a unique local
identifier for each object within the repository.

(d) The globally unique identifier is a concatenation of the local
identifier, followed by a hyphen ("-", ASCII value 0x002D), followed
by the repository identifier."

There's nothing here that I see that requires the restriction you've alluded
to.

-Scott-