Re: Example of stupid inconsistencies between registries
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8 mar 2012, at 02:28, Jay Daley wrote: > To explain what I mean, here's a simple idea - could the protocol have been designed to better minimise pain for registrars while maintaining the choice for registries? I think this is a case that creates a problem for the _registrant_. If it was only a registry/registrar battle (as in most cases we discuss on this list ;-) ) I would not have spent so much time on this. > With two variants of the protocol as tightly coupled to policy as this, then when a registry changes policy it has to change interface. A registry that want to be "thick" can still receive the DS, then fetch the DNSKEY from DNS which they validate against the DS. If they want create a new DS they can do so with whatever digest algorithm they want and not even publish the DS that the client passes to them. So the DS should be enough. Everything else is bonus. Or am I completely confused before enough coffee here in the morning? Btw, I will be at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica and do not mind talking with people about this. Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg