Re: [ire] A question on upRr field

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

I believe that the reference to Registrar is meant to match up to the RDE
Registrar object, in section 5.4, that includes the below text:

The RDE registrar object is the sponsoring client of other RDE
   objects, for operational purposes MAY be the registry operator.


The majority of the cases it will be a registrar, but MAY include the
registry operator.  A more generic term in this case would be Account, but
I personally don't have a major issue using the name Registrar.  Other
types of  accounts / registrar records could be deposited like ICANN or
IANA if it's applicable.

-- 
 
JG
 

 
James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[e-mail]
 
703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com





On 3/20/13 11:35 AM, "Christopher Browne" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Adrian Cho <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>> Hello Gustavo
>>
>> On Page 7 of
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-02.txt
>>
>> It says
>> An OPTIONAL <upRr> element that contains the identifier of the
>>       registrar that last updated the domain name object.  This element
>>       MUST NOT be present if the domain has never been modified.
>>
>> Question
>>
>> What happens if the domain object is updated internally by the
>>registry? For instance, if a customer service agent put
>>
>> serverUpdateProhibited status
>>
>> on a domain.
>>
>> How do we get this last piece of "change history" into escrow file??
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>
>This is a place where the terminology of EPP is a bit peculiar.
>
>If you look at RFC 5730, you see that the set of RFCs are characterized
>as being motivated for use in registry/registrar interactions.
>
>However, it is curious to observe that the word "registrar" never occurs
>in RFCs 5731, 5732, 5733, or 5734.  The word "client" is used instead,
>and it just struck me that it is possible that the IRE specifications
>should consider the same usage.
>
>Everyone involved in domain registrations understands and generally
>expects that the interactions are mostly between registries and
>registrars.  However, there do tend to be some other sorts of clients
>present that do work that needs to be tracked, so that the set of
>clients includes:
>
>a) Registrars, obviously,
>b) Registry operators, which could include and require distinguishing
>between
>   "legal operators" and "technical operators"
>c) A naming authority such as ICANN or IANA
>
>For the specific case you're talking about, I don't see it as unreasonable
>that the escrow would be expected to capture that a change might be made
>by the registry operator, which implies that <upRr> mustn't strictly be
>required to be a registrar.
>
>In the latest draft, IRE uses the term "registrar" 218 times, and I wonder
>if most of those shouldn't be replaced with the term "client."  There is a
>fairly different use made of the term "client" in the IRE draft, so
>it definitely isn't as simple as merely substituting "client" for
>"registrar."
>
>At any rate, I don't think all of the "registrars" identified in IRE are
>necessarily actually registrars, and the document probably needs
>some modification to indicate the possibility of other kinds of parties
>being responsible for data in a registry.
>_______________________________________________
>ire mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire