On 22 Apr 2020, at 18:30, Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nice!
>
> You didn't name the entity/company, so I won't ask. But I am mildly
> curious about why they never brought the proposal to the regext
> working group.
Others will surely have greater insight, but there is much work on the
registry-registrar interface that happens outside the IETF. I am aware that the
regext wg chairs have put considerable effort into trying to encourage more
such work to happen there, but there is some degree of cultural round peg
square/hole going on.
As a minor adjunct to Patrick's earlier advice on EPP, note that not all
registries use separate host and domain objects. In some registries the data
you might otherwise find in a host object is present in domain objects
themselves, rather than domain objects and host objects being linked. I think
this behaviour is exclusively found in non-contracted registries.
RFC 5731:
<complexType name="nsType">
<choice>
<element name="hostObj" type="eppcom:labelType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="hostAttr" type="domain:hostAttrType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</choice>
</complexType>
<!--
Name servers are either host objects or attributes.
-->
<complexType name="hostAttrType">
<sequence>
<element name="hostName" type="eppcom:labelType"/>
<element name="hostAddr" type="host:addrType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!--
If attributes, addresses are optional and follow the
structure defined in the host mapping.
-->
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
