In message <[email protected]>, Alex Bligh writes: > > > --On 4 March 2010 15:42:40 -0800 Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> The losing registrar is either going to be helpful, or unhelpful. Given > >>> that adding ANY kind of mechanism to enable secure transition of the > >>> domain is extra work without any direct benefit, the answer is > >>> overwhelmingly likely to be "unhelpful." At least in the case of the > >>> gTLD registrars this is an area where ICANN intervention is likely to be > >>> required, and may actually be beneficial. > >> > >> Partly depends on thick vs. thin registry model though. > > > > Sorry for being dense, but I don't see how. > > In a thick registry model, it would be possible for the registrant > to specify a DS key that the registry (rather than registrar) would > store, just like NS records are specified. So if the registrar changes, > there is no registrar involvement re DS keys unless they are deliberately > obnoxious.
Thick or thin the DS is stored along with the NS. This really isn't a registrar problem. It's a DNS operator problem. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
