Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] References for Today's Host Object Discussion

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:15:35 -0500

To those who are asking for this, please comment...either to the 
list, or you can send something to the chairs (Jaap and I).

At 8:17 -0500 3/31/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Sure.  Here's what I have in mind:

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

I've had it with world domination.  The maintenance fees are too high.

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:22:06 -0500

Hey Scott,

On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at 08:17 Canada/Eastern, Hollenbeck, Scott 
wrote:

>> Unless I am missing something, Scott, can you propose some text that
>> would accommodate nameservers-as-attributes?  Based on:
>>
>>> - Allowing a choice between name server host objects and
>> name server domain
>>> attributes.
>>>    http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-12/msg00024.html
>

This looks good. It would be helpful to see the descriptive text you 
mentioned (and some example requests) to confirm that I'm understanding 
what you mean, exactly.

There is one related issue that may deserve some thought. At the moment 
an address is required for a host record if the host is named under the 
apex of the registry. Where hosts are specified as attributes of domain 
objects, however, there is the opportunity to modify that rule; 
addresses can be required on hosts which are named under the domain in 
whose object they appear.

So, for example, a domain object for "automagic.org" might contain host 
attributes for nameservers "buffoon.automagic.org", "ns1.flame.org" and 
"foo.something-else.com". Only the "buffoon.automagic.org" host would 
require addresses under the scheme outlined above.

In the case of a registry which supports hosts-as-attributes, this (or 
something like it) seems like it would be necessary to avoid different 
domain objects containing conflicting addresses for hosts.

Joe

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:50:22 +0200

Joe,

    

Well, as a registry which does that, we actually also like to have
ip#s for out of zone name servers (optionally). We check wether the
delegation exists for the domain at the mentioned nameservers.

If no ip#s are given, we use whatever we find from the DNS. If the
ip#s are given, we use those. This turns out to be useful when more
then one things are happening at the same time. The ip#s of name
servers itself might be changing as well (because of a merger of
parties involved etc.).  In cases like these the proper A record
might not be available yet.

Of course, we never publish the A for "foo.something-else.com" and
the like. We do keep the information archived. We keep an archive
of all transactions surrounding domain names. Just in case
(technical/juridical) problems pop up later.

	jaap