On 13 jul 2012, at 13:57, Peter Koch wrote: > while this discussion is refreshing, the reason Paul (was) volunteered > to write this document was less the (re-)definition of the lame delegation > terminology but more to address (potential) requirements for an in-band > child parent key exchange. Let's leave the bikeshed black for the moment > and focus on the design of the bikes instead.
Because I find the registrar/registry description be non-complete, and in some cases wrong, let me suggest that portion of the draft is just removed, and instead that the draft actually talk about what it is supposed to talk about. For example: - I recommend strongly to not talk about sub-registrars - I recommend as strongly to not talk about registrant/registry relationship - The protocol to use to communicate with registrar is normally private API, not epp - It varies what and how the registrars are to send data to the registry, even if epp is in use, so just skip trying to describe it as registries have too much difference in policy and ideas on how that is to be done Etc... Patrik _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
