Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries
Klaus Malorny <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 05/03/12 14:49, Gould, James wrote: > Michael, > > I'm not voting but simply covering how the two interfaces made it into the RFC. > I can see the basis for both interfaces, but I certainty don't believe that a > mix in a single registry is workable. > Why? The only problematic situation is the transfer of a domain. But the DNSSEC related data is not deleted during the transfer, so it stays as long as the new registrar desires. And if the registrar wants to update the DNSSEC data, he can specify to delete all previous data (be it DS or DNSKEY) and replace it with his preferable representation. Generally, I think the topic is overestimated -- I think it is more critical that the various registries allow different sets of algorithms for the DNSKEY and I cannot choose the same algorithm for all my domains. Klaus _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg