On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:24:16AM +0800, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote a message of 28 lines which said:
> > it is draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root. Some people remarked that we > > don't even have an EPP mapping for DNAME. It is not the biggest > > obstacle to draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root but this new draft > > draft-bortzmeyer-regext-epp-dname is an attempt to lift it. > > Now I'm confused. I can see the point of a DNAME from .local to > empty.as112.arpa, and maybe a few poisoned 2LDs to empty.as112.arpa, > but DNAME'ing anything else in a TLD or 2LD is asking for misery Well, TLD which agree with you will simply don't implement or deploy this service, that's all (like all other EPP extensions). The draft draft-bortzmeyer-regext-epp-dname describes a XML schema, not a TLD policy. And, anyway, my first use case was only for the root but I don't see the point of hardwiring this specificity in the draft _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
