Registrar-registrar notification

Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com> Tue, 30 October 2001 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9UFLEos025759 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:21:14 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9UFLE6n025758 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:21:14 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f
Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (relay.hq.tis.com [192.94.214.100] (may be forged)) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9UFLCos025753 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:21:13 +0100 (MET)
Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id KAA19174; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:25:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp1.netsec.tislabs.com(199.171.39.21) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5) id xmaa19140; Tue, 30 Oct 01 10:25:39 -0500
X-Sender: lewis@pop.tislabs.com
Message-Id: <v0313030eb804742f55f9@[199.171.39.21]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:22:17 -0500
To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Subject: Registrar-registrar notification
Cc: lewis@tislabs.com
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk

When reading through the drafts, the following dilemma appears to be possible.

Reg A registers domain1.example, with ns1.domain1.example as the name
server.  (I'm using just one server here for simplicity.)

Reg B has a customer arrive that wants domain2.example and use
ns2.domain1.example as its name server.

Reg B's problem is that it needs Reg A to cooperate and create
ns2.domain.example before B can proceed fulfilling the order.  The two
questions here are 1) what is there to motivate A to cooperate <not a
provreg question> and 2) how does B request A to make the change <assuming
no hostility>.

The answer to 2 is either a simple call from B to A, or possibly a message
sent via the registry (and picked up by A via polling or pushing).

The question to the group: should the protocol define such a notification
schema/object/message?  If so, perhaps the means are already in the drafts
- should the drafts discuss the general issue here.

BTW - the same issue rises when Reg A tries to remove domain1.example.
ns2.domain1.example is serving domain2.example, so A needs B to break that
bond first.

The group shouldn't dive into making A and B cooperate, but we should
discuss if or how they communicate (within EPP).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.