Hi James, I understand your distinction between registrar and reseller, and I agree. Registrars are provisioned differently, and have a formal role to provisioning objects and contracts, just as registrants do. I didn’t suggest to have registrars/registrants be transformed into generic organizations objects just yet if that was what you were thinking I meant. It’s other future roles that I see similar to resellers why I would want a generic organizational object to be used for resellers. If the name "generic organization” confuses you, we might also call it "additional registration liaisons” or whatever is appropriate, but it’s more than just resellers.
So in fact we would have 3 "objects" for entities/organizations: 1. Registrants (mandatory in any registration contract, even in a situation without registrars or resellers, yes, direct registrations still exist at some registries!) 2. Registrars (if present, usually authoritative for the provisioning data, and often also for billing information in the ICANN model at least) 3. All other organizations not formally defined by or mandatory in registration contracts. The pragmatic problem being considered now is indeed making non contractual resellers visible, but I expect other organizations -not resellers- on the horizon with the same wish to be tagged to provisioning objects as well. They might need to be visible as well, or even have special permissions, and they might have multiple roles. Roles I expect include dns-operators, auditors, expanded RDAP access credentials, abuse desks, law enforcement, privacy agents, data processors etc.. I wouldn’t want to define a new object every time I wanted to innovate service to customers. I just want to give the object an additional role in relation to a provisioning object, so they can use the new service belonging with that role. - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 Op 3 mrt. 2017, om 16:12 heeft Gould, James <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > I believe that “Option 1: A dedicated reseller object” is the best route to > go. I get the idea of creating a generic organization, but you need to > consider the problem being considered and the difference of a registrar from > a reseller. > > 1. A registrar (direct customer) has a direct relationship with the > registry and is provisioned outside of EPP or any B2B protocol. A registrar > organization would only support an info unless you enable a registrar to > update their own record via EPP, which seems like a real stretch use case. > 2. A registrar is automatically attached to the provisioned objects > (e.g., domain, host, and contact) in the registry based on the create and > transfer commands. There is need for tagging a provisioning object with a > direct customer organization. > > The problem that is being considered is making the resellers visible at the > registry level to support tagging of provisioning objects for display in > RDDS, for applying registrar controlled reseller policy (security, financial, > etc.) at the registry level, and providing registry provided reports and > visualizations split out by reseller. > > Is there another problem that needs to be solved by elevating the reseller > object up to the more generic organization? > > > — > > JG > > <image001.png> > > James Gould > Distinguished Engineer > [email protected] > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com > > From: regext <[email protected]> on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" > <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:22 AM > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Working group action required on > draft-ietf-regext-reseller-ext-01.txt > > From: regext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 8:54 AM > To: regext <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Working group action required on > draft-ietf-regext-reseller-ext-01.txt > > No expressions of preference have been expressed for over a month now :-( > I think the authors deserve good guidance from the working group so they can > progress their drafts, so let me be the first to express my motivation. > I hope we can discuss this in Chicago, so more opinions are certainly needed > on the mailinglist! > > [chair hat off, personal opinion] > > I have a strong preference for option 2, a generic organization object, and a > reseller mapping to such an organization object to identify resellers for a > domain. > > [snip] > > Same here, though I don’t know if an organization object would need > additional mappings or if it might be possible to just define roles for > organizations. Bottom line is that I would prefer a generic organization > object for all the reasons Antoin listed. > > Scott
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
