Subject: RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:32:39 -0500

> Well, at the moment I don't know which proposal you are referring to, 
> but let me say that external hosts were never a problem to me. The 
> problem I had and still have are the in-zone hosts - who is 
> allowed to 
> create them and under which conditions they are used for the 
> creation of 
> glue records. I explained more than once to you that your 
> model does not 
> have the high level of security/reliability you claim. I got the 
> impression that it wasn't a communication problem that you did not 
> understand me, but that you just *didn't want* to understand 
> me. I have 
> to admit that this really hurt me somewhere.

I (and again, others -- check the archives) continue to disagree with your
assertions of model deficiency, and when we pointed out the issues with
_your_ model (like the bulk update problem) you typically failed to respond.
That's not a sign of not trying to understand -- if anything, it's a clear
sign of trying to explore all of the issues in necessary detail.

I don't think I ever came across as rude or disinterested, and I stand by
the fact that several of your comments were incorporated into the drafts as
evidence of acceptance of your ideas.

-Scott-

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:07:15 +0100

> sign of trying to explore all of the issues in necessary detail.

I'm not aware of any question that I left unanswered. In addition, you mix up my 
model and DENIC's current one. I once suggested a model that has the flexibility 
of DENIC (anyone can specify any name server, no separate relational model for 
in-zone and out-of-zone hosts) while having host objects. Both models allow the 
change of IP addresses of hosts used by multiple domains in a single request. My 
model additionally allows to even change the name of a host used as a name 
server in multiple domains in a single request.

My model has a drawback regarding potential in-zone host name resolution cycles, 
but this problem is IMHO heavily overestimated and can be handled during zone 
file generation. A quick analyses of our domains shows that nearly none of our 
.info and .biz domains and only 2% of our .org domains fully rely on in-zone 
hosts. Even our com/net domains have a rate of less than 50%. This is surely not 
representative, and I expect that ccTLDs have a much higher rate > 95%. So 
depending on the registry, EPP's host model, where cycles involving out-of-zone 
hosts are not prevented, has little benefit to the operativeness of the DNS. If 
one takes the abilities of misconfigurations into account which are fully 
ignored by the current gTLD registries (contrary to many ccTLDs), this makes 
even less sense.

Everything above I wrote at least once to the list and I don't want to discuss 
this in detail any longer. You said in a recent e-mail, that you don't want to 
make fundamential changes to the protocol at this point of progress, which is 
understandable to me. So if I ever have to use EPP on server side, I'm going to 
maltreat it until it fits my needs, whether it is recognizable as EPP afterwards 
or not.

> -Scott-

regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      [email-masked]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0