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

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:01:16 -0500

> I wonder whether it might be reasonable to accommodate the 
> non-host-object case in the current spec before it is shipped for 
> proposed standard. This doesn't seem like it would be a major 
> change to 
> the text, and the impact on existing implementations seems 
> small (zero, 
> maybe) considering that the spec would not change for 
> registries which 
> choose to include host objects.

I'm not one of the people responsible for determining consensus, but I can
say that the domain document has completed both WG and IETF last calls with
the currently specified feature set.  Our chairs can, of course, direct me
to change something if WG consensus is to make a change.  I'd prefer to keep
things as-is, though, because this is _not_ a new argument and we'll have a
chance to address this again when considering what to do when going from
proposed to draft.

One of the things I intend to do once we're there is capture the outstanding
issues in an I-D that can be used to seed the proposed-to-draft discussion.
It would be helpful if people who have issues with any current features
could send me a note (off-list is OK) describing what they don't like _and_
a suggested solution.  We might then have the start of a pretty good problem
statement for EPP 1.1 or 2.0.

-Scott-

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:57:19 -0500

Speaking in a co-chair capacity,

I think that it is fair to reopen the issue.  Jaap and I are aware of 
a significant number of silent speakers that really want to be 
host-object free.

Answering to the charge that these documents sailed through last call 
without comment on this topic (albeit a topic discussed on the list), 
EPP has been generating wider interest as it progresses.

There's always the trade-off of delay and feature adding, and mission 
creep versus focus.  There is no clear rule that applies to each 
situation, so the question:

    Should EPP define a host-object-less model now?

is one that can't be answered categorically (the "now" thing).  But I 
think that it seems worthwhile to do so now - while we are also 
preparing to answer the privacy issue.

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

Joe offered to help..."I would be happy to contribute text if this 
sounds like a reasonable approach."

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

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