Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018, at 20:01, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > - I can not really imagine multiple versions of your extension in the > wild at the same time (James/you speak about -01 vs -02), do you have a > specific idea in mind? And even in that case the client would surely at login specify only

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

Hi Stéphane, James beats me for an extensive review of your draft. Here are some of my points however: * I agree on your specific goal of just DNAME and its specific semantic (however you can have other records besides DNAME for a specific QNAME, like RRSIG. RFC6672 §6.1 has a clear example

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 03:46:28PM +, Gould, James wrote a message of 72 lines which said: > Thanks for posting the draft for review. And thanks for the detailed review. > The following is my initial feedback: Most of it has been incorporated