Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5 mar 2012, at 14:21, Gould, James wrote: > I believe that a > mix of "thin" and "fat" would make things more complex since the > registrars would need to support both instead of one interface for the > registries that do support the "fat" model. Today that is obviously what we have as the registries do support either DS or KEY (and not both). > Think about handling > transfers between registrars where the gaining registrar supports only the > "thin" model and the losing registrar supports both "thin" and "fat". Yup, that creates problems for the registrant as well. > The registries that I work > on support the "thin" model with the ds data interface. ...and the registries I work with so far (which include .SE) support the DS interface. But I stumbled upon one that only support KEY interface. Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 195 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iD8DBQFPVMA4rMabGguI180RArxnAJ0R0+o2IWQm/1u94fabB42Pi21idQCgh7vK kveP1ie6UXoV/zLQL5xCaR4= =fhLF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----