Re: Changes we'd make to EPP, was Re: Domain check in draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt

On 07/01/12 09:47, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 6 jan 2012, at 19:17, Keith Gaughan wrote:
> 
>> Actually, I've no problem with creating contacts, then having the subsequent
>> registration fail.
> 
> The case that could be discussed is how to handle transfer of domain objects.
> What happens with the host and contact objects? That would be good if there
> was an agreement on that.

That's a massive grey area. Some registries duplicate the contact objects[1],
others appear to have a rule stating that contacts associated with a domain
under the control of a registrar are queryable (though naturally not
modifiable) even if that registrar is not the actual owner of the contact.

I doubt we'll ever be able to achieve consensus on which way of doing this
kind of thing is better as both have perfectly reasonable arguments that can
be made for them. If my own work, I take the assumption that if a domain has
been transferred to us, that we don't own the associated contacts. That's
only because it allows our system to ignore the case where the contacts have
been duplicated[2], though I've no strong feelings on which policy is better.
This is exactly the kind of thing that would fit into the policy document
James and I have been discussing here.

K.

[1] Obviously host objects will get duplicated. It really makes no sense
    *not* to duplicate them.

[2] Which is also an argument for an object deletion notification mechanism.

-- 
Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer
PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. <http://blacknight.com/>
12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland
Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg