Jim,
For 3.1.1, we will discuss the inclusion of the glue policies section. It might
make sense to move it to a focused informational draft.
For 5.2.1, that’s a good point on the renaming issue. We can add it in the next
draft.
For 6.2.1, we can rewrite the best proposed practices to more
Scott,
I support adoption of the draft since it's important for the community to
resolve this in a consistent manner. Below is my feedback to the changes in
-02:
1. Section 3.1.1 “Impact of Glue Policies”
* I believe this section is interesting, but I don’t see the correlation
On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 10:20 AM Gavin Brown wrote:
>
> Do you think the ttl_values object needs an events array then?
>
> To support this I would change the ttl_values object as follows:
>
> "ttl": {
> "values": {
> "NS": 3600,
> "DS": 60,
> },
> "events": [
> {
> "eventAction":
> -Original Message-
> From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
> internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:11 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-epp-delete-bcp-
> 02.txt
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the
Gavin,
Support for the Change Poll message in EPP to inform the registrar of an
out-of-band TTL change makes perfect sense. The registrar would then be
responsible to inform the registrant and if the registrant had a question
related to the TTL settings the registrar should provide the
Hi Jim,
> On 3 Jan 2024, at 15:53, Gould, James wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> The TTL is an extension to the domain name update, so they are not
> independent.
The draft explicitly states that TTLs may be changed out-of-band. The Change
Poll extension is suggested as a way to inform registrars of
