On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/08/2013 12:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> However I think a reasonable conclusion from the stalemates that have >>> arisen from all of the previous attempts over the years would be, "There is >>> no agreement on how to proceed, so we should not proceed." >> >> That is the opposite of the feeling that I got from the DNSOP meeting in >> Berlin. > > ... and yet, there is a larger world outside the select few able to attend > the meetings. :) One could even reasonably argue that the opinion of those > who do attend the meetings is of questionable statistical validity due to > volunteer bias. > >>> But have we any evidence that if created, this mechanism will be used? >> >> IIRC, there were at least a few TLD operators at the DNSOP WG in Berlin who >> indicated they would strongly consider it. > > Translated, "The idea does not suck so much that we feel comfortable > rejecting it out of hand, but we have no real interest in it." > >>> I personally don't subscribe to the "If we build it, they will come" school >>> of engineering. We have too many counterexamples in the DNS already. >> >> That's fine; neither you or I (currently) run a TLD and we don't have to >> think about it yet. This is for the people do run TLDs, and the multitude >> who are going to be doing so soon. > > ... which leads back to my previously expressed concern that the gTLD RRA > framework may specifically prevent this kind of child-to-parent signaling > from being possible. Which is why the draft specifically talks about parental agents: Parental Agent: "The entity that the child has relationship with, to change its delegation information." and Appendix A has: For example in many of the TLD cases there is the RRR model (Registry, Registrar and Registrant). The Registry operates DNS for the TLD, the Registrars accept registrations and place information into the Registries database. The Registrant only communicates with the Registrar; frequently the Registry is not allowed to communicate with the Registrant. In that case as far as the registrant is concerned the Registrar == Parent. Basically the 50'000ft view is: In many regulatory environments (the polite way of saying where ICANN says "No!") the *registrar* will fetch the CDS / CDNSKEY and will push the updated records into the *registry* through existing mechanisms (like EPP). W > > To save everyone time and further responses, I've seen all the > counter-arguments, and have followed the most recent thread in addition to > the previous ones. I stand by my analysis that this is a solution in search > of a problem, and that limited resources could be better spent elsewhere; for > whatever that analysis is worth. > > Doug > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- "Have you got any previous convictions?" "Well, I dunno... I suppose I used to believe very firmly that a penny saved is a penny earned--" -- Terry Pratchett _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
