IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue

James Mitchell <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au> Wed, 15 May 2013 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
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 B49F721F8ED3 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 BJzME8rP+bll for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx01.ausregistry.net.au (mx01.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.15.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBDB21F8EAD for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au (HELO off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.1.3]) by iron01.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 16 May 2013 00:18:26 +1000
Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Thu, 16 May 2013 00:18:25 +1000
From: James Mitchell <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>, liushuo <liushuo@knet.cn>, ire <ire@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:18:18 +1000
Thread-Topic: [ire] About Host Data Issue
Thread-Index: Ac5Rdw+baweUq3gaQFqHdSIFH0S9cA==
Message-ID: <CDB9D437.8B048%james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <CDB8F983.4FA40%jgould@verisign.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_CDB9D4378B048jamesmitchellausregistrycomau_"
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 14:18:35 -0000

I see no need for a deposit to include external hosts, however their omission may complicate the process of restoring a registry. Furthermore, I'd expect escrow agents check that all name-server associations have corresponding host objects, where host objects are used.

Regards,
James

From: <Gould>, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 10:41 PM
To: liushuo <liushuo@knet.cn<mailto:liushuo@knet.cn>>, ire <ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [ire] About Host Data Issue

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<mailto: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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email