> Just gave an initial read. I’m not quite sure of the use-case that would > motivate this, other than trying to eliminate round-trips. But maybe that’s > the point. :-)
Yes, that's the point. It's not atypical for a registrar to have to perform 6 or more <info> commands in order to retrieve all the relevant information about a domain name (registrant/admin/tech/billing contact objects, 2 or more nameservers). This extension allows all that information to be retrieved in a single command/response transaction. Obviously this is less of an issue for a thin registry. I may be barking up the wrong tree here, so would appreciate feedback from registrars as to whether this extension would be helpful (if sufficiently deployed by registries). > One bit of initial feedback: In section 3, I was expecting to see “MUST” in > this sentence: > “When determining whether to include a related object in the <ro:infData> > element, servers SHOULD apply the same access control rules that are used to > determine whether a client is authorised to perform an <info> on those > objects.” I don’t understand why the protocol would allow the server to use > different access rules for the same data accessed via a different path. Agreed - will fix. G. -- Gavin Brown CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) https://centralnicregistry.com CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: Saddlers House, Gutter Lane, London EC2V 6BR. https://www.centralnic.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
