Ok that's helped it clarify things in my mind.
So your desire is to have an epp mapping for dname so that the verisign
registry for the root zone can accept such records? I suppose that's up to
the root zone maintainers and there's no harm in creating the mapping or
an extension. But the use case
Why wouldnt we have DNAME at the apex of the registered name? Ie
controlled by the domain owner.
I may be missing something of the use case here.
Kal Feher
On 13/11/17, 00:20, "regext on behalf of Edmon Chung"
wrote:
>We actually do
The point I was making was that the use cases appear to be very small.
Even where a name registry might use it, there appear to be actual
solutions that don't use it. If you're bundling IDN domains, that's
typically a server side policy. No epp necessary. If you're allowing user
choice, then a
Stephane, I would definitely appreciate a summary during the meeting today if
you wish to share.
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephane
> Bortzmeyer
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 8:00 AM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:52:26AM +,
Feher, Kal wrote
a message of 71 lines which said:
> Why wouldnt we have DNAME at the apex of the registered name? Ie
> controlled by the domain owner.
It would force the domain holder to have nameservers configured for
I cannot speak for .cat, but looking at zone file archives for their TLD, I
haven't seen DNAMES for a while. I believe they stopped using DNAMEs at some
point in the past.
--
Francisco
On 11/13/17, 12:20 AM, "regext on behalf of Edmon Chung"
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 02:26:00AM +,
Feher, Kal wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
> certainly in breach of current gTLD requirements for zone contents.
There are not only ICANN-regulated registries. Besides the root (my
personal use case), there are
We actually do not use DNAME for IDN Variants at DotAsia. IDN Variants are
delegated to the same set of NS as the primary IDN for .Asia. Nevertheless,
its prob good to revisit having a standard IDN Variant provisioning
extension (again) now with the progress in the LGR work...
Edmon
>
[This comes from a discussion in DNSOP about a possible future
.internal.]
Some TLD include DNAMEs (for instance .cat and .asia) but apparently
only as parts of an IDN bundle. Nevertheless, we could imagine a
registry accepting registrations implemented as a DNAME record, not NS
records.
There