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-----