Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries

This one is specifically irritating as it requires in worst case massive explanations, education and web/REST interface implementations that are dependent on the TLD. I.e. something a registrar can not "hide" from the registrant.

I am not happy about differences that cost registrars hard work of various kinds. But I am definitely not happy of things that cost registrant things.

So, for this specific case, I would like to see a MUST in at least the DS interface.

   Patrik

On 5 mar 2012, at 11:59, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:

> 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

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFPVJ3IrMabGguI180RAvECAKCUtcWFIH+yOrmQAMA2z80Ka88l0ACfek+A
o9T4w4Ubb6IUatVQS7knvTI=
=3LcP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----