Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue

"Gould, James" <> Wed, 15 May 2013 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231E821F8F4A for <>; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bSCOXdd7rleh for <>; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCBF21F8F83 for <>; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZOCmDwCxsO/; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:38 PDT
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r4FCfulr030904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 May 2013 08:41:57 -0400
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:41:56 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: liushuo <>, ire <>
Thread-Topic: [ire] About Host Data Issue
Thread-Index: AQHOUUyLvM09w0YjC0eGeJVO68HZs5kGMImA
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:41:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_CDB8F9834FA40jgouldverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:42:44 -0000


I believe that both internal and external hosts need to be included in the deposit, since the goal of the deposit is to capture the information contained in the registry database.  Both internal and external hosts are first-class objects in the registry database, so they must be included in the deposit.  The name server links between the domain names and the hosts should result in an objects at both ends of the links, meaning external hosts cannot be excluded from the deposit to make the links complete.




James Gould
Principal Software Engineer

703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

From: "liushuo@knet" <<>>
Reply-To: liushuo <<>>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:57 AM
To: ire <<>>
Subject: [ire] About Host Data Issue

Hi All,

We are puzzled with the host data in deposit, we used to think that the host data should be the name servers associated with domain in the deposit, in this case some other gTLD's NSes may be  included in deposits such as,etc.
But now we tend to believe that the hosts under the same registry should be the answer, that is only the hosts under new gTLD 'xn--fiq64b' should be included in xn--fiq64b's deposit file.

Are we right? Or both of the hosts under the registry and the NSes which may not under the registry should be included?