Re: IDN administrative bundling
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:37:31PM +1100, James Mitchell wrote: > Why treat each variant as a separate domain object that "can" be managed independently when they actually can't? > I can see one reason: no requirement of a completely new EPP object type. This isn't nothing. Also, EPP already has to support registry policies that place restrictions on what you can do to a name even though the restriction isn't reflected anywhere in the registry; we call this "registry policy" usually. For instance, some names require a "presence" requirement be fulfilled. The presence precondition is satisfied by the address value in the primary contact associated with the domain. You can tell, if you look, whether a given contact object will satisfy a given presence precondition, but there's no way to tell just by looking at a name whether some contact or other will fulfill its presence preconditions. (Nevertheless, there is something that feels unnatural under EPP about linking different objects together this way, however loosely.) Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg