On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > 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's partial list of problems with the document can be summarized as: What is the intention of this document: is it describing current operations, or operations that we want to see? If it is the former then, yes, there is a lot of completely incorrect statements. If it is the latter, it will be interesting to imagine how we can get consensus because current operators won't want to change to this new design or to run two or more different operations in parallel. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
