On 3/2/10 9:38 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > At 10:43 +0100 3/2/10, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: >> > either have a bof (formal) or a small lunch mtg >> > during the week of IETF77? >> > >> > I'd be glad to attend. >> ... >> >> going to be there and he agreed to attend the BoF. >> >> Note, it is way past the time to request a BOF so I geuss the only >> option is something informal. > > I'm on the verge of putting together a Bar BoF call on the IETF list. > There have been two work items I wanted to cover - EPPbis and the issue > of provisioning DS records.
I'm quite interested in the EPPbis area, and the DS provisioning problem, but I'm spending my wicked limited travel time until mid-May (my partner's a 1L at Cornell Law) on a CORE technical meeting. I'll be happy to v-bar-bof from in front of a German beer, 9 timezones distant. > Only in the last week did it sink into me that the problem is that we > need a way to push DS records along the established registration path > and not the DNS operations path. What this means - for registries that > operate DNS and have direct dealings with registrants, the DS can go > from the registrant's designated DNS operator to the registry. For > registries that deal exclusively with registrars, the registrant's DNS > operator has to know how to get the DS to the registrar (who in turn > will use some other protocol to reach the registry). > > Unfortunately, I doubt that many registrars will be at the IETF. (Maybe > they will be.) This means we might not get the word out to those who > should help shape the requirements for this. There will be some meeting of registrars (ICANN accredited that is) a week from today, and there is the RSG mailing list too. > My concern - if the IETF produces a solution for transferring DS records > in-band to the DNS protocol we will repeat a mistake made in pushing EPP > to Full Standard. Pushing EPP to Full Standard is in itself a true > accomplishment and there is no controversy, the process was followed > faithfully. The problem is, once it was Full Standard it was found to > not be applicable to the general population that it was designed to > serve. The protocol works and is interoperable; the requirements didn't > grow as the use cases grew. > +1 Eric _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
