Re: IDN administrative bundling

Kevin Tes <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Organization CNNIC
Message-ID <1333073831.1585.43.camel@zenus>
Hi, I do think this draft
"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kong-epp-idn-variants-mapping-00" may
help you a lot.

In this draft,it let the registrant to create 'bundle' members in epp
<domain:create> command and let the registrant 'add' or 'rem' bundle
members in <domain:update> command.All the members in this bundle share
the same informations.

Renew and Transfer ,Delete command are all to this bundle.

On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 21:46 -0400, Benoit Levac wrote:
> CIRA is considering the implementation of administrative bundling for
> the release of French character IDNs in the registry.  Under the
> proposed policy, each IDN domain would be independent from a
> registration and DNS management perspective.  However, all domains
> that share the same canonical form as defined by our policy (café.ca,
> cafe.ca, çafe.ca …) would have to be registered by the same registrar
> and to the same registrant contact id.
> 
>  
> 
> We have started discussing the registry implementation, and one of the
> biggest challenges comes with registrar transfers or the updating a
> domain’s registrant contact id.  Under our proposed policy we have to
> find a way to ensure that all registered variants maintain the same
> registrar and registrant contact.
> 
>  
> 
> The most promising implementation proposal is to queue the update and
> transfer requests until a request has been submitted for all variants
> in a bundle.  While we wait for all actions, would apply
> “pendingTransfer” and “pendingUpdate” statuses as described in
> sections 2.3 and 3.3 of RFC 5731.
> 
>  
> 
> 1 – Does anyone know of a similar domain bundling policy so that we
> could look at its implementation?  Or might there be an RFC that would
> define something similar?
> 
>  
> 
> 2 – Does anyone on this list have experience for using offline review
> of requested actions other than transfer?  Is there anything we should
> be careful about in picking this implementation?
> 
>  
> 
> 3 – With domain transfer, there is a defined way of cancelling a
> pending transfer (as per section 2.9.3.4 of RFC 5730), but for a
> pending domain update, there is no defined way to cancel a pending
> operation.  Any suggestions out there.
> 
>  
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> provreg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 316 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iJwEAAECAAYFAk91F6cACgkQatMoyEN1mK+BpQP+M+5cslKzInKwK0W99nCUz9bg
JbLTpy8YJhegqKNKRcpvHnxjazuVKNwBGuuaUzH9eWI3NtGPPcL8vPze4x2vL7Xi
NRmlw8jbZ+ZSp6wk8JKS8/j6O82MedbjOU2TUuN09YoAiUBwfP4czhNdpcCKbXvn
4JrzOiK04QMwX8LODOQ=
=wvaR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.