Subject: RE: Handling of External Host Objects

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 20:08:13 -0500

One of the reasons I think that this external host thing continues to be an
issue is because it's a kludge.  I firmly believe that the only objects that
should exist in a repository are objects for which the repository is
authoritative.  Other needed data should exist as attributes of existing
objects.

I suggested this concept related to external hosts back when the topic first
came up.  Some folks had issues with it, but I'll suggest it again as an
alternative.  In a nutshell:

- The only objects that should exist in a repository are objects for which
the repository is authoritative.

- Host objects should only be created in a repository that is authoritative
for the host.  In the case of hosts as name servers, "authoritative" means
that data in the repository (host name and address(es)) is used to publish
DNS glue and the repository is the legitimate source for that data.

- If an external host is needed for delegation purposes, it can be
associated with a domain object as an attribute of the object with no host
object needed in advance.  There's no need to create an external host object
ahead of time, no need to worry about IP addresses, etc.

This solution does not allow object-based management of external hosts,
which means that renaming the external host would need to be done on a
per-name basis.  It may address the other issues that people have talked
about on this thread, though.

I know this means that a domain can be associated with hosts as objects and
host as attributes and some people think that's inconsistent.  I don't think
it is if you agree with the first point above.

-Scott-

---

From: janusz sienkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:21:47 -0500

I assume that with the new external host approach domain transfer process would
be simplified. No error code 2305 for transfer requests and approvals.

Regards,

Janusz Sienkiewicz

---

From: Daniel Manley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 19:17:02 -0500

And from out of nowhere...  ;)

Hollenbeck, Scott a écrit:

><snip>
I see how this could resolve/avoid a lot of potential problems 
(transfers, ownership, etc), but with these new gTLDs, I would guess 
that the majority of nameservers in use are non-authoritative to the 
registries, so registrars would lose the ability to do mass updates as 
with nameservers as objects.  I don't think I would want to give this 
up.  As a registrar, I would have to write scripts to perform mass 
updates, taking up processing time on both the client and the server 
systems.

-- 
Daniel Manley
Tucows, Inc.
Toronto, Canada
[email-masked]

---

From: janusz sienkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:49:16 -0500

Dan,

having ability to do mass updates on external hosts is not a win-win solution
for registrars.
Registrars can avoid writing scripts to update domain objects. That's true.
From the other hand they will have to implement additional steps and exception
handling for domain transfer process.
The process, even without dealing with external hosts issues, is already quite
complex.

Regards,

Janusz Sienkiewicz