Re: IDN administrative bundling
Benoit Levac <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Patrik, Francisco, Thank you for your comments. I've added comments inline below. Ben -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March-29-12 10:12 PM To: Francisco Obispo Cc: Benoit Levac; [email protected] Subject: Re: [provreg] IDN administrative bundling On 30 mar 2012, at 04:05, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> If you are just waiting for the registrar to send the same command over and over again until it completes the names in the bundle, why don't you process it upfront with the first one? > The main difference between the two models is whether the registry should do changes that are to be reflected in the registrar database, or whether the registrar should do all commands. > I am personally as a registrar in favor of the latter. That the registry should really minimize the number of changes made that have to be reflected in the registrar database. And because of that it is better if the status is "pending" until the registrar have made changes to all objects involved. Actually that is exactly the reason why we are leaning towards using "pending" statuses as opposed to automatically applying the actions to all variants. For example, a registrar which has not prepared their systems for these changes could end up transferring multiple domains after submitting a single transfer for a single domain. It also means that they would be charged for all of these domains (one request could cause a charge for multiple transfers). > Is there an alternative when some domain names in the bundle is not registered? Not delegated? Requirements on same delegation of all of them? I.e. I think we have a generic issue related to bundles to discuss. Under our currently proposed administrative bundling, each domain object is managed independently. So there is no requirement on delegation. > Similar problems happens when both the holder and the registrar changes for a domain name in the bundle btw. How do you handle the contact object when changes happens to the domain object? In our current system, when domains are transferred, we create a clone of the contact objects sponsored by the gaining registrar and assign them to the domain. Because all of the variants would have the same contact at the loosing registrar, we would assign a clone of that contact to all the variants when the transfer takes place (which would happen to all the variants at the same time). > But, just like Francisco I also ask what mechanism is to be used to ensure the registrant and registrar (and everyone else) know what domain names are in the bundle? Orthogonal question, but also important. We are just starting to define our implementation, but the current proposal is that the info command could return a list of allocated variants as part of an extension. This would only be returned to the sponsoring registrar, or a non-sponsoring registrar with the auth-code. > Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg