Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries

Patrik

Welcome to our world :)

We see inconsistencies between registries all the time - it makes integration with new registry providers painful and as a result we tend to focus on the ones whose quirks we've already dealt with 

Regards

Michele


On 5 Mar 2012, at 10:43, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> According to RFC 5910, section 4, there are two alternative interfaces for managing DNSSEC key data when interfacing with a registry. The RFC does not explicitly say whether a registry must implement one or the other.
> 
> I have successfully implemented in a web interface, an API for registrants etc, the DS interface as the client do believe passing DS data is the easiest. After all that is what is to be signed by the parent.
> 
> I just encountered a registry that "want to set a limit on what digest algorithms to use" and to do that, they have decided to not implement the DS interface and only support the KEY interface.
> 
> I can accept limitations on what digest algorithms they accept, but not limitations by not supporting DS.
> 
> Reactions?
> 
>  Patrik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> provreg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.biz
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg