Welcome back Scott/DaddyO,
In the new system, or asap, increased domain security thru lockdowns is
something that i would use.
regards,
Swerve
> From: Scott Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:38:25 -0400
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re[4]: contact handles and we want to have your children
>
> At 12:17 AM 7/17/01 -0400, Phillip Beazley wrote:
>> At 12:02 AM 7/17/2001 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>>
>>> If we'd looked closer at this particular irk, then we'd probably have
>>> implemented a much more comprehensive solution. Unfortunately, we didn't go
>>> deep enough on the issue.
>>
>> So does this basically mean we're SOL forever on this issue or what?
>
> Absolutely not -
>
> This has been on our list for a long time, and is coming close to getting
> worked on. You, can help by providing your thoughts on how it should be done.
>
> Specifically:
>
> - should we introduce handles that would work across profiles (essentially,
> you can assign a role to a handle, and then modify that handle as necessary)
> - if we were to increase the power of certain roles (technical contact
> control of NS's for example), how should we introduce this? How should we
> deal with legacy roles of this type - extend them the same power
> automagically, or require that they specifically ask for the new role type
> - how important would providing support for existing handles at other
> registries be? would it be worth supporting this considering the large
> complexities it would introduce to development?
> - what works well now, what stinks, and what must you have in a new system?
>
> Regards,
>
> sA
> Scott Allan
> Director OpenSRS
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
