Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries
Peter Koch <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: > ...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. quite frankly, I don't. Since the registry is free(*) to decide to support DNSSEC (or not) in the first place, there's probably other things to worry about. > I.e. why should a registrant have to send _different_ information to the registrar for example.A and example.B? Because that's already the fact regardless of DNSSEC? And if as a registrar you'd like to be of help, just accept the key and compute the DS. Or ask both the DS and the DNSKEY from the registrant (or their DNS operator). > 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. The provisioning protocol should implement policy, not dictate it. Otherwise you'd really end up with incompatible extensions. -Peter (*) Within the boundaries of the applicable policy process. _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg