Subject: [ietf-provreg] RFC3731: domain:roid in <info> response

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:27:10 +0200

Hi,

i just noticed that the "roid" element in the response to a <domain:info>
request is a mandatory element. However, it seems that the "roid" is not
required in any other requests on domain objects, because all other
transactions use the <domain:name> to identify a certain object instance.

So, is there a reason why the "roid" is not optional in the <info> response?
And, any chance to change that in 3731bis? As it seems to me, we'd need to
"leak" the internal id of a domain object to the client for just this single
info-response - without any further use.

any insight appreciated.

cheers

Alex Mayrhofer
nic.at

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:11:26 -0400

> transactions use the <domain:name> to identify a certain object instance.

It might be useful to clients over time, though: a domain name need
not be unique over time (whereas the roid is defined in such a way
that it ought to be).  When the record is current, of course, the
sponsor could know what the roid is (because they had it originally,
and the object hasn't been removed from the repository).  But it is
undoubtedly extremely useful for retrospective co-ordination for
client and server operators to be able to refer to different objects
of the same name by unique ids.  

Of course, that's not a terribly strong reason for a mandatory
requirement.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: janusz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:34:41 -0400

Alex,
making the element OPTIONAL could create some problems for EPP clients. 
A domain object with the same name can be deleted and later recreated. I 
don't see anything else than <domain:roid> in domain info response that 
would allow EPP clients detection of such situations.

cheers,

Janusz Sienkiewicz

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:36:59 +0200

> of the same name by unique ids.  

Yep, that was the only use case that came to my mind - addressing a specific
instance of a delegation instead of "the currently active one", eg. for
retrieval of historic data of a ceased delegation (because the "name" would
obviously address the current one). However, for that to work, also requests
would need to allow using a roid instead of the domain name - and that is
not the case (yet? ;).

Anyways, points (especially about backwards compatibility) taken. now
crafting a creative way to derive roid's from ENUM domain instances ;)

cheers

Alex