On 2013-03-13, at 13:34, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/13/2013 10:20 AM, Joe Abley wrote: >> >> On 2013-03-13, at 13:17, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In order to really make this work a non-trivial number of TLD >>> registries (which have a variety of different rules and policies) >>> AND registrars would have to be on board. >> >> No. Where there are registrars involved, you just need a registrar >> that can handle your domain name to support it. The >> registry-registrar interactions can remain unchanged. > > Sure, if you can accomplish getting the registrars that handle your domains > on board then you've accomplished the goal for you. What about everyone else? > Or do we only care about this problem to the extent that it affects certain > TLDs?
Doug, I don't understand your concern. You insisted earlier that for gTLDs, we would need support by all TLD registries and all registrars. I said that's nonsense. Now I don't understand what your point is. >>> Has anyone communicated with them about this topic? The ICANN >>> forums for both groups would be a good place to start. >> >> No doubt some of them have people here. But this is not an topic that >> deals with issues of registries and registrars; it's a DNS protocol >> issue. Changing the context to a policy one seems unlikely to result >> in additional light. > > Why do you think I'm trying to turn it into a policy issue? Honestly, I have no idea why you're trying to do that. But by suggesting loudly that we need to build requirements from gTLD registrars and registries, that's indeed what you are doing. I'm actively opposed to that because I think it's unnecessary, and a distraction from the work at hand. >>> You're defining "need" differently than I am. You're saying, "We >>> need an automated mechanism to deal with DS records." I'm saying >>> that unless the registries and registrars are on board with the >>> mechanism we create, it doesn't matter how good it is, it isn't >>> going to solve the real-world need. >> >> I understand. I think you're wrong. > > Ok, show me why I'm wrong. How is this mechanism going to work for you if the > registries and registrars don't implement it? You said (earlier) we needed *all* registries and registrars to support it. I disagreed with that (there is non-zero utility in this scheme being implemented by just one registrar, or one registry that doesn't follow the RRR model). I disagree that registries that follow the RRR model need to be involved at all (the work can be done by registrars). >>>> Also, I don't know how realistic "near real time" is, if you >>>> consider the problem of a parent operator having to poll >>>> 5,000,000 children for changes. "Some time today" would satisfy >>>> the need I see. >>> >>> ... which is why I agreed with the others that raised the idea of a >>> special packet for the child to send to the parent to signal the >>> need to scrape. >> >> I think that's a non-starter. > > Why? I think it'd be a support nightmare, it can't work in cases where registries are not allowed to interact directly with registrants, and it's rife with DDoS potential. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
