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

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:39:13 -0500

After today's meeting some people asked me for a reference to an earlier
discussion about host objects being used as name servers.  For those of you
who weren't there, we talked a little bit about the history of why we have
an object concept for name server hosts.  Part of the ensuing discussion
touched on all of the options that have been discussed over the last few
years, including:

- Host objects for all name servers.
(This is a simplified expression of what we have in the documents now)

- Host objects for only in-zone hosts, with external hosts specified as
domain object attributes.
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-11/msg00008.html

- Allowing a choice between name server host objects and name server domain
attributes.
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-12/msg00024.html

I've included references to the list archives where I've been able to find
them.  What did we ever do before google came along...

For what it's worth, I kind of like the last option (or something like it)
as something to consider for the next version of the protocol.  We've heard
a lot of comments from people having issues with host objects as name
servers; maybe we can eliminate the issues if we allow a choice.

-Scott-

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:59:39 -0500

On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 15:39 Canada/Eastern, Hollenbeck, Scott 

> servers; maybe we can eliminate the issues if we allow a choice.

Thanks for posting that link; I have been hearing similar comments for 
some time, and I hadn't realised the issue had already been considered. 
Eliminating the requirement to support host objects would make EPP a 
viable prospect for several registries that I have talked to recently.

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 would be happy to contribute text if this sounds like a reasonable 
approach.

Joe