Are escrow deposit files per-TLD, or per-registry operator?

In the case of a registry operator who operates multiple TLDs in a single
database, are the escrow deposit files intended to be per-TLD? Or
per-registry operator?

My suspicion is that it should be the latter. The entire reason for the
escrow deposit to exist is to transition to an EBERO in the event that a
registry operator is unable to perform its duties. That could happen on a
per-TLD basis, but it would be a lot more efficient to do it for *all* TLDs
that are managed by that registry operator.

So if that is the case, what are we to make of the escrow deposit file
naming convention?

Files will be named according to the following convention:
>


> {gTLD}_{YYYY-MM-DD}_{type}_S{#}_R{rev}.{ext} where:
> 5.1 {gTLD} is replaced with the gTLD name; in case of an IDN-TLD, the
> ASCII-compatible form
> (A-Label) must be used;


If there is a single escrow file with multiple TLDs embedded in it, what
would you use for "{gTLD}"? Is the assumption that all TLDs will be stored
in totally separate databases? Or that they should be written to separate
files, even if stored in the same database? That would mean that shared
objects (e.g. contacts, hosts, etc.) would have to be written multiple
times. That seems less than ideal.

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg