On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Doug Barton wrote:
Errr ... your past bad experiences aside, let's take 2 possible theoretical
scenarios.
(I just hit reply in alpine)
1. There is nothing the TLD operators will accept in this space.
In which case we don't need to consider them.
2. There is something that the TLD operators would gladly implement, but
because we don't talk to them and find out what that is, the thing which we
do end up creating gets ignored.
That makes it sound we can help them technically, when the problem
raised was political. Again, we tried that a year ago by just mentioning
that some of the technical solutions could intersect with politics and
everything ground to a halt.
In both scenarios we've wasted our time. Of course there is some small
utility for non-TLD parents, but that's in the margins.
That's your opinion I strongly disagree with.
I don't like wasting time, and I like even less giving the critics who say
the IETF is out of touch and anachronistic more ammunition.
And I don't like giving critics who say IETF works on standarising
yesterday's problems more ammunition.
If a TLD contract does not allow registrant-registry contact directly,
then that prevents child-parent interaction, and so nothing we specify
here can be used. So this issue is fully out of scope for this document.
I didn't say raise the issue in the document. What I said was that we should
understand the landscape before we try to build on it.
We tried that. I did not get any feedback for
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wouters-dnsop-secure-update-use-cases-00
other then "we will never do this, it violates our policy". And that was
just specifying the use cases, not even trying to state any technical
solution.
If the registry/registrar people want a specific solution that works for
them, they should see if this draft can be made to work for them, or
suggest improvements how this can work for them, or come up with
something else entirely. But let's not wait two years to fix the generic
parent-child secure update possibilities for others just because people
are knee deep in contractual law.
This draft only has to state that updating the parent records based on
the child records is subject to the local policy of the parent and its
representative. What else is there to say?
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
