Re: IDN administrative bundling
James Mitchell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CB9B8F1E.1BDCF%[email protected]> |
Why treat each variant as a separate domain object that "can" be managed independently when they actually can't? What if you promote the bundle to be a first class object having a canonical form, registrant contact, sponsoring registrar etc and have the domain names as attributes of that object. The domain names can be used as keys into the bundle when mapped onto interfaces such as EPP and WHOIS. You do get into a bit of an ugly however as update domain1 change registrant also changes domain2..n, however you could restrict updates to only the primary registered domain name pushing variant names into the background. On the other hand you have to deal with pendingUpdate, registrars failing to submit updates for all domains, registrars sending incompatible updates etc. James From: Benoit Levac <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:46:41 +1100 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [provreg] IDN administrative bundling 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