On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 9:17 AM Gould, James <jgould=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Gavin,
>
> I believe the domain-level TTL applies to the records it owns, which
> include the DS, NS, and DNAME.  The host-level TTL applies to the records
> it owns, which include the A and AAAA.  In your examples, if we're talking
> about the NS TTL of the example.com delegating name server ns1.example.com,
> it would be 3600 for both.  If the ns1.example.com host TTL was set to
> 86400, it would be applied to the A and AAAA glue records.
>
> --


Each RRSet can have its own TTL different from other RRSets with the same
name (ie, the TTL for A records can be different for AAAA records).

Are you referring to the host-level TTL which is at the Registry level ?
You could define those to be the same.

tim



>
>
> JG
>
>
>
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> [email protected]
> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
> On 9/27/22, 6:48 AM, "Gavin Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Rick and Jim for the feedback. I am happy to accept the idea of
> the extension working for both domain and host objects and will work
> towards making that a part of the next version.
>
>     One point for possible further discussion is the "priority" of TTL
> values: I am going to state that the TTL value of the host object takes
> priority over the TTL of the superordinate domain. So if:
>
>         com default TTL: 172800
>         example.com TTL: 3600:
>         ns1.example.com TTL: (undefined)
>
>     then the TTL for NS records delegating to ns1.example.com should be
> 3600, but if
>
>         com default TTL: 172800
>         example.com TTL: 3600:
>         ns1.example.com TTL: 86400
>
>     then the TTL should be 86400.
>
>     G.
>
>     > On 26 Sep 2022, at 13:41, Rick Wilhelm <[email protected]> wrote:
>     >
>     > Gavin,
>     >
>     > Just a +1 for having this extension cover both the domain and host
> objects.
>     >
>     > The sibling glue model has enough deployment that having the
> extension cover both models makes sense.
>     >
>     >
>     > One other thing… and this is not a call for a change, just
> concurrence to an existing design choice that is in the draft.  I like the
> behavior described for Server Processing of TTL Values (Section 4,
> paragraph 2) where the description covers the scenario where the TTL values
> are outside the range.
>     >
>     > The doc says to reject the command with a 2004 “Parameter value
> range error”.  I was wondering if this might be “too aggressive” for a
> <create> (it clearly makes sense for an <update>), but after some thought,
> I agree with the current behavior.
>     >
>     > First, it’s consistent.  Second, since the extension is optional
> (and since hosts links are optional on domain::create, the extension is
> “2x-optional”), it is better to “fast fail” due to validation enforcement.
> Because to let the <domain::create> go through and have the invalid values
> flagged with only a warning is more likely to lead to confusion in the
> future.  That is, a client that is not properly respecting the limits of
> the TTL values is also unlikely to be heading a hypothetical warning value.
>     >
>     > So, bottom line, after some thought, I like the way that this works.
>     >
>     >
>     > Thanks
>     > Rick
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > From: regext <[email protected]> on behalf of Gould, James
> <[email protected]>
>     > Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 at 9:48 AM
>     > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]<[email protected]>
>     > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>     > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-regext-brown-epp-ttl-01.txt
>     >
>     > CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust
> emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are
> not expecting.
>     >
>     > Gavin,
>     >
>     > The TTL for the A/AAAA records need to be applied to the host object
> and the TTL for the NS and DS records need to be applied to the domain
> object. Setting the A/AAAA TTL at the host object level would apply to
> registries that implement sibling glue as well as CentralNic and TANGO that
> implement in-bailiwick only glue.
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > JG
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > James Gould
>     > Fellow Engineer
>     > [email protected]
> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
>     >
>     > 703-948-3271
>     > 12061 Bluemont Way
>     > Reston, VA 20190
>     >
>     > Verisign.com <
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1rl_OvR6_k8szzz82KnsefauK2VVokmHEilpYRTh_bVhZ8bgeo-8SaO5imViM18jSfegFFfsa2CWcLPV7Gbp2E_kjmnltoelhZ7LF9LAeSmcY7DaH_J4I2ojQR4Ljeaj4ywnV-AvV8uX8osivccNRe5haKolMCxQA4O4m828dwyjBYh9BuIM9UZiWzgiqdUb7vig4eH4LiZxaDLZ5RxHPl5V_tNJAbtFnW4Yo8sUlZxyIcDYV3kUic7u7vbswy3Us/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F
> >
>     >
>     > On 9/16/22, 9:17 PM, "regext on behalf of Gavin Brown" <
> [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi Thomas,
>     >
>     > Thanks for the suggestions. I will add them to the next version.
>     >
>     > G.
>     >
>     > > On 15 Sep 2022, at 01:11, Thomas Corte (TANGO support) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > On 9/14/22 13:35, Gavin Brown wrote:
>     > >
>     > >> Greetings all,
>     > >>
>     > >> Many years ago CentralNic had a proprietary EPP extension for
> managing
>     > >> the TTL values of domain names. ...
>     > >>
>     > >> However I've had a bit of feedback about the draft since then, so
> I've
>     > >> just published a new version and am now sharing it with the WG for
>     > >> feedback.
>     > >
>     > > I have two comments:
>     > >
>     > > 1) The specification should probably address the effect of the
> TTLs on
>     > > IDN variants. If a registry supports IDN variants as attributes of
> a
>     > > domain name (either automatically added or via an extension), they
> will
>     > > usually add some DNS records dedicated to these variants to the
> TLD zone,
>     > > so the spec should specify that the same TTL is applied to these
>     > > dedicated records as well. If IDN variants are managed as their
> own
>     > > objects, they can receive their own specific TTL values.
>     > >
>     > > 2) I'd suggest to add this boilerplate text (or something similar)
> to the
>     > > draft:
>     > >
>     > > "EPP uses XML namespaces to provide an extensible object management
>     > > framework and to identify schemas required for XML instance parsing
>     > > and validation. These namespaces and schema definitions are used to
>     > > identify both the base protocol schema and the schemas for managed
>     > > objects. The XML namespace prefixes used in examples (such as the
>     > > string "ttl" in "xmlns:ttl") are solely for illustrative purposes.
> A
>     > > conforming implementation MUST NOT require the use of these or any
>     > > other specific namespace prefixes."
>     > >
>     > > This is a pet peeve of mine, as some registries still haven't
> managed to
>     > > implement this correctly.
>     > >
>     > >> In our implementation, glue records are only published if the
>     > >> superordinate domain is delegated to them, and the current
>     > >> specification assumes the same design choice. However this is
>     > >> obviously not true for other registries, so being able to change
> the
>     > >> TTL on a host object independently of the superordinate domain
> may be
>     > >> needed to account for scenarios where the client wishes to change
> the
>     > >> TTL of all NS records *except* those of the superordinate domain.
>     > >> However I am not sure if this is a scenario that justifies the
>     > >> additional complexity entailed - but I'd appreciate the list's
> input
>     > >> on that point.
>     > >
>     > > Our own TANGO system's zone generation also suppresses glue
> records if
>     > > they're unnecessary, so I'd agree that the extra complexity
> shouldn't be
>     > > required.
>     > >
>     > > Best regards,
>     > >
>     > > Thomas
>     > >
>     > > --
>     > > TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
>     > > Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Thomas Corte
>     > > Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
>     > > Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200
>     > > D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: [email protected]
>     > > Germany
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Gavin Brown
>     > Head of Registry Services
>     > CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
>     >
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/14iQKw6gpSA8BoJOmhv6QjiaCTMGaV1jtoe_uIp8bRMky-K_waMharMEg1LYAtlWQzbHVPm2AmR56O6ydcDKobgVBEd8Mp95GJ4pfxuUZclcuaVBTXohuG6UFiZL8xJ3nqGu2mdmXKQsJPMkec8furVUgjMJNBPl8lwD5Bq0rklXDq-hFZXWTKZmWa5fb8Uwnk0OsfYNX4uZhal8J_rCVACHGBTdRrXemWcsjenM7fbYJzUttkEdStu8R7PY547eg/https%3A%2F%2Fcentralnicregistry.com
>     >
>     > Cal:
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1hJ_Ypbd5OAM--cIUke4ujR8-8LTMV4cqpfYs9QUL3-xaEmFm7OPW_RKJa5TaJZ-HneITtwkOeMVSKTCbmrMbjcErDdz8Dn9s8KdDKMHHT_n0P5y-9uAWYPonAmrg9XVm72gORCQ9yh_SEzHxdAInQcg2pxTqBSDiW21bw4Msfzp7DQlftiKFeHB_z6wxjFlsu1gkcEBSt3buj5OUNEPih8pWx70nO2sXSue_OSN30cn26q27kvkyDHix9BcqlRSV/https%3A%2F%2Fcnic.link%2Fgbcalendar
>     >
>     > CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: Saddlers House, Gutter
> Lane, London EC2V 6BR.
>     >
>     >
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1dbi9wWVJ28DEfKsxyfgDEQU-jFqu7mdY6XAsqbxvETOtZUTia8UHVG3wWzYeRemA7OPimBJnEWIQ_chpT9e5Sa-J20mZ-lg7OKtsrHauuCHNraZIrO2sRn6I4uLLUnXzu7GzOmhVsqGk-bob53BCqaJDheGvFW_lx1FJtJFFdvwqJk7jnOmAXoXJh9o7jqHERzAzFZQabrHdQPUpCk_gViXXZQ3itKXVeka3mdJHHng6f07BY0VfTk3jZ8prKebY/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.centralnic.com
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > regext mailing list
>     > [email protected]
>     >
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/17iGVT_AU5IsvLflCUT5ypMVunmm1fTgnPxEcMeRIVbSjVZJoJIWdWHyw157N9qknJiHgZkxVaZWRtrflXFk_7WtXpCWF_Gwe7PdF_lmQJh07SRN5vMVGi3XbZKgIdtWTMfx3R-diYwdR5a2_tC-ByoLYtPrGe7Mnivy3oZbVWZlEGNeiP0fE_5Nccxc5kNkVoPC0hdk-f9gyPQAaiVMskLu5OoHGs-thMpK2RAklTTuW5nbCC9f53GvnO4SlCwKo/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > regext mailing list
>     > [email protected]
>     >
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uk2fr6SbgeYDiRtLSfE1gPeoIP4OayW3D3MTev2AuxEowvJhHH5o8fP6ofVKpbYk9eTqZ6S_bmtbQDKx6fUf7P0ImAG5so__X7EpvZHBGu0GQA8PzfkmDBeu9g4bXGCQGT1ysLBknZZg_7-n-dHO5uk8_hYLo-fuzU_ybXQyiqzl69mzdnKeapHFIPRb3TeJWcErjbiXngDHUvXL5Ur1C6UaheiImxW8XMzN-XaVOPVP-cCFSMh1GMJa1ZRxmBla/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
>     >
>
>     --
>     Gavin Brown
>     Head of Registry Services
>     CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lktPhnXJ36QcWwB_nWDEJX9acgMw_YC_GzImtZ2c5yvEGow5GLZMQ0ORxKlFsxwT51e51Wp2-pgNTSc8_HV_jVGV0W8gJCGuEUvxLe7cjMooPXHRuuTmHphXBiz06r5oP2oMPVE5cMWm29pkLEVLfdvPL9UfUMlurzdH8E6VBTvAjOVEM_CInVFIOc1gnXi918T4uyFvu7N52YFOPOoCVqUbZF6_zzx8fZ_xK1Nsf1a6iJubj2RqsEZZZXNV9oA7/https%3A%2F%2Fcentralnicregistry.com
>
>     Cal:
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lWudxzTziTfT5hvKxlPQaNV-2-MrZRMowg9M6FcmrV_lz70NlhT-i43go4JssAwqRncGzIeaczGpjsJ6YPNNgZMp9RYvNH1_A7fLus-n8dClA7yXy65qmTS_xx2CT4V85u1RP-AhKqBnqJ4HGXvI8nYCIE0FdGSPaM6GJl-Tx914ebRVnyU3Zo7TatfJnujyZDo5KeyAklCr5bxK64X7bMaKoCCG884wb3OgzjkXciohIki5KfWTZ-ugD4kFRCY0/https%3A%2F%2Fcnic.link%2Fgbcalendar
>
>     CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
> company number 8576358. Registered Offices: Saddlers House, Gutter Lane,
> London EC2V 6BR.
>
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/14_4cnKxNaqSyp1oKSQfhdnzhHvyxCD2B0Gk1eOyOeEJtIaTWO3IgtpdDX8gtW75lANjmeH_mrNdl0n8N1ruZgDVkcXp7j7mZMeocw4Hziv5o4efgOflfVzaflSEmswIhMqtWUrYvOQiiSkqAI_tR1TNoCVzbDmQV5vF3Tdxr3LMABlhGn5Z3e53Ku1gkVPGMPdHLfTDxCgGRHFkgcr6fVnODqsvP6DW4g-lufDNjPJEoErcVCqlYNats-NU4rl4K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.centralnic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to