On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:04 AM Gavin Brown wrote:
> So something like this? I've also thrown in min/default/max values as well:
>
> "ttl": [
> {
> "types": ["NS", "DELEG"],
> "value": 3600,
> "min": 60, // optional
> "default": 86400, // optional
> "max": 172800, //
Gavin & Andy,
The TTL RDAP extension is now getting more complex with no defined value
provided for the extension. I have a set of questions included below:
1. Are there any ccTLDs or RIRs (non-EPP) that have the value position for
replicating the TTL information in RDAP? Please provide a
Hi Andy,
> On 4 Jan 2024, at 14:22, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> 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":
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":
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
Andy,
The TTL is an extension to the domain name update, so they are not independent.
The same goes for the DNSSEC extension, where I don't believe the "events"
member of the "dsData"member is generally used. Are there RDAP servers that
include "dsData" "events" member that differs from the
Hi Andy,
> On 3 Jan 2024, at 15:12, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> Given that the TTL can be updated independently of the domain name,
> there is utility in exposing TTLs in RDAP especially if that
> information can be given with the events & links as is done with the
> DNSSEC data in RDAP. I know I
Given that the TTL can be updated independently of the domain name,
there is utility in exposing TTLs in RDAP especially if that
information can be given with the events & links as is done with the
DNSSEC data in RDAP. I know I have had times in the past when I needed
to know when a TTL was last
Gavin,
Agreed that the base RDAP RFCs include DNS information, but in the case of
nameservers they are standard provisioning objects with the host EPP mapping in
RFC 5733 and with additional attributes. I don't believe that there is value
in replicating DNS information in RDAP that is not
Hi Jim,
> On 2 Jan 2024, at 14:52, Gould, James wrote:
>
> Gavin,
>
> I question the need for a TTL RDAP extension, since the TTLs are easily
> assessable in DNS to the public. The management of the TTLs is provisioned
> in EPP via the TTL EPP extension and can be made available to the
11 matches
Mail list logo
