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) > <thomas.co...@knipp.de> 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: thomas.co...@knipp.de > Germany > > > > > -- Gavin Brown Head of Registry Services CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) https://centralnicregistry.com Cal: https://cnic.link/gbcalendar 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://www.centralnic.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
