Re: Standard Extensions
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D665A65@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Klaus Malorny > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [provreg] Standard Extensions [snip] > While this cannot be directly debited to the effort for the registrar > support of the Verisign registry, these two services would have made > more sense to be located at the registry instead of at the registrar, > but this was impossible with the thin registry model. Then this is a case of "be careful of what you wish for" because the thin registry model was *NOT* an NSI/Verisign mandate. It was demanded by the early registrars who were concerned about the privacy of their customer data when NSI had both registry and registrar functions within the same company. There has been some more recent discussion of changing the model, but I'm not aware of any change in direction. Scott _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg