Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries
Howard Eland <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:48:04AM -0500, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote: >> Ok I see this argument but on the other hand I have to ask how much >> responsibility does the registry want to take on? > > The registry took on the responsibility for authoritative data in its > zone by virtue of accepting the delegation from its parent (usually > the root). You might as well argue that the registry doesn't really > have to keep its apex records well-maintained. Yes - when working on this RFC, we were torn between two different realities: (1) that there were already many registries that either (1a) want to take the "registrar is responsible for the data they send to the registry" model, or (1b) are already working fine with accepting DS data, and don't want to change; vs. (2) The DS record is a completely different dragon, and (2a) the registry should generate any data for which it is authoritative, or (2b) the registry wants to make sure that it has some control over which algorithms are in use (i.e. registry X does not want to see GOST, or registry Y wants to make sure they only see GOST). Consensus was that both arguments (1) and (2) were valid, so the RFC was worded to allow either. > >> verify the DS data. However, lets face it, I can publish whatever I >> want to the registry and then later on mess my zone up because I >> mis-manage something. > > That's just irrelevant. The issue here is data that is authoritative > _only_ in the parent-side zone. Right - see (1a) above. -Howard _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg