[regext] Reseller Object vs Generic Organization Object

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

I've been giving some thought to the possibility of writing up a proposal for a generic organization object that can be compared to the proposal we have for a reseller object since the topic came up at last week's meeting. After looking things over I concluded that a generic organization object would look an awful lot like what's already written for the reseller object, so I'd like to suggest an alternative that doesn't require a lot of text cloning.

Step 1: If the object described in draft-ietf-regext-reseller were changed from "reseller" to "genOrg" (or something similar), we would have an object that could be used to describe a generic organization. We might need to add or modify a field or two or more, but I think what's there is close.

Step 2: If the extension described in draft-ietf-regext-reseller-ext were modified to note different types of extended organization relationships, we could have support for resellers, DNS service providers, hosting providers, and/or whatever other organization relationships people see a need for. An extended <info> response, for example, could look like this:

S:<extension>
S:  <genOrgExt:infData xmlns:genOrgExt="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:genOrgExt-1.0">
S:    <genOrgExt:id type="reseller">myreseller</genOrgExt:id> 
S:    <genOrgExt:id type="dnsProvider">myDNSProvider</genOrgExt:id>
S:  </genOrgExt:infData>
S:</extension>

We could add an IANA registry for organization identifier types.

Is something like this worth considering? It looks pretty simple to me.

Scott