[ire] About Host Data Issue

"liushuo@knet" <liushuo@knet.cn> Wed, 15 May 2013 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <liushuo@knet.cn>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E4B21F8F20 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.306
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9Sl1bYb1Pyr for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (unknown []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6018521F8F0C for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: liushuo@knet.cn
Received: from unknown203.119.80.47 (HELO stuart-knet) ( by with SMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 16:57:15 +0800
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:57:14 +0800
From: "liushuo@knet" <liushuo@knet.cn>
To: ire <ire@ietf.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2013051516571376226516@knet.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart613855837285_=----"
Subject: [ire] About Host Data Issue
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: liushuo <liushuo@knet.cn>
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 09:13:58 -0000

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?