Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue
"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 12:42 UTC
Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231E821F8F4A for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.598
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bSCOXdd7rleh for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og124.obsmtp.com (exprod6og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCBF21F8F83 for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob124.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZOCmDwCxsO/1fGiCR5rxFnKvTbpHdB3@postini.com; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:42:38 PDT
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (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 BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:41:56 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: liushuo <liushuo@knet.cn>, ire <ire@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ire] About Host Data Issue
Thread-Index: AQHOUUyLvM09w0YjC0eGeJVO68HZs5kGMImA
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:41:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CDB8F983.4FA40%jgould@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <2013051516571376226516@knet.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_CDB8F9834FA40jgouldverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <ire.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ire>
List-Post: <mailto:ire@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:42:44 -0000
Stuart, 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. -- JG [cid:B476A0A8-45B6-4EBE-9E9C-9BA01E552F32] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: "liushuo@knet" <liushuo@knet.cn<mailto:liushuo@knet.cn>> Reply-To: liushuo <liushuo@knet.cn<mailto:liushuo@knet.cn>> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:57 AM To: ire <ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>> 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 ns1.google.com,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? Regards, Stuart
- [ire] About Host Data Issue liushuo@knet
- Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue Gould, James
- Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue James Mitchell
- Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue Francisco Obispo
- Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue Gustavo Lozano
- Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue liushuo@knet