Re: Registry lock - setting statuses on hosts

On 3 okt 2013, at 17:13, Stuart Olmstead-Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

> At CIRA we are working through our approach to Registry Lock and are wondering what perspectives there are out there on the approach to setting of server statuses on hosts – i.e. the locking of hosts.
>  
> We are considering two main approaches:
>  
> 1.       From the setting of a “domain lock” (serverUpdate, serverTransfer and serverDelete prohibited statuses set), automatically cascade the related host statuses (serverUpdate and serverDelete prohibited) to all host entities assigned (nameservers) to the domain in question.
>  
> 2.       Separate the locking of domains and hosts into disparate transactions – i.e. one domain update transaction to set the domain server statuses followed by subsequent host update transactions to set server statuses on desired hosts.
>  
> Our main considerations here are balancing ease of use from a registrar’s perspective vs differing too far from a consistent industry approach. 

Do we actually know exactly what changes are no longer allowed when there is a registry lock?

For example, what about DNSSEC material?

   Patrik

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFSUr2JrMabGguI180RApx4AJ0S45mEuEY+rSDNInEhykoQeI+mAgCcCKaj
b5aKuwJMZX5/CVwvYtQzv1Q=
=Q64Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----