Subject: [ietf-provreg] .name EPP 1.0 implementation

From: "Asbjorn S. Mikkelsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:25:52 +0100

Hi,

As you might or might not be aware, dotName implemented EPP version
05/03 with the following additional feature added from EPP version
06/04:

 "External host objects MUST be managed on a per-client basis.  No
  superordinate domain object exists in the repository, thus no single
  client has management authority for the superordinate domain object.
  Per-client management ensures that no single client can create an
  instance of an external host object to the detriment of other clients
  who might need to use the host for DNS delegation purposes."
(draft-ietf-provreg-epp-host-04.txt, page 3)

The per-client management of external hosts were added as a means to
avoid potential domain hijackings and conflicts between registrars.

We have been in the process of upgrading to EPP 1.0 for some time now,
and as the above feature has since been removed from the protocol
description, we have fine-read the RFCs to find out if anything in them
prohibits this behaviour. We have also consulted a few members on this
list to get their views on this issue. 

As far as we can tell it is not clear in EPP 1.0 if having external host
objects managed on a per-client basis are acceptable behaviour according
to the RFC. We are aware that some people think this is an
implementation detail but we are not sure and would like to ask your
opinion on whether this should be explicitly stated in the RFC as
acceptable behaviour.

We have discussed converting from managing host objects on a per-client
basis to have one shared external hosts namespace, but coordinating this
when 50+ registrars have registered the same name server with us seems
not feasible to either us or the registrars.

Please feel free to contact me privately or on the list if you have any
questions or concerns.

Best regards,

Asbjorn Mikkelsen
CTO
GNR Ltd

Subject: [ietf-provreg] .name EPP 1.0 implementation
From: "Asbjorn S. Mikkelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:25:52 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi,

As you might or might not be aware, dotName implemented EPP version
05/03 with the following additional feature added from EPP version
06/04:

 "External host objects MUST be managed on a per-client basis.  No
  superordinate domain object exists in the repository, thus no single
  client has management authority for the superordinate domain object.
  Per-client management ensures that no single client can create an
  instance of an external host object to the detriment of other clients
  who might need to use the host for DNS delegation purposes."
(draft-ietf-provreg-epp-host-04.txt, page 3)

The per-client management of external hosts were added as a means to
avoid potential domain hijackings and conflicts between registrars.

We have been in the process of upgrading to EPP 1.0 for some time now,
and as the above feature has since been removed from the protocol
description, we have fine-read the RFCs to find out if anything in them
prohibits this behaviour. We have also consulted a few members on this
list to get their views on this issue. 

As far as we can tell it is not clear in EPP 1.0 if having external host
objects managed on a per-client basis are acceptable behaviour according
to the RFC. We are aware that some people think this is an
implementation detail but we are not sure and would like to ask your
opinion on whether this should be explicitly stated in the RFC as
acceptable behaviour.

We have discussed converting from managing host objects on a per-client
basis to have one shared external hosts namespace, but coordinating this
when 50+ registrars have registered the same name server with us seems
not feasible to either us or the registrars.

Please feel free to contact me privately or on the list if you have any
questions or concerns.

Best regards,

Asbjorn Mikkelsen
CTO
GNR Ltd