Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries

On 5 mar 2012, at 12:50, Peter Koch wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> Some registries have decided to operate on DNSKEY rather than DS. It appears
> reasonable to me to reflect this in the provisioning protocol.
> This is exactly not an EPP inconsistency, because EPP is policy neutral here
> and can thus well be used for either way.

...and as you understand I think that the fact that there seems to be an ability for registries to choose in their epp interface is extremely bad for the registrant.

I.e. why should a registrant have to send _different_ information to the registrar for example.A and example.B?

Where "example" is the same for both TLDs.

In one case DS, in another case KEY?

I want to admit that when I read the RFC in question, I read it as if both interfaces should exist. Not that a registry could say no to one. So I personally missed this during last call.

   Patrik

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

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

iD8DBQFPVLlbrMabGguI180RAvKAAJ9avBPSgTy0ykJKFpN3EVViPk2eagCeNdiI
kpYMtWI7wTvfN6z30iBFO1A=
=wOCo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----