On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I understand, though this document is trying to be a technical one, not
a legal one.
It would be better if it was really a "use cases" one.
What I meant was, we are looking at use cases without looking at legal
limitations. If some use cases will not be legally suitable for some TLD
or non-TLD cases, that is not a reason to remove the use case from this
document.
If the examples in the RRR model can be made more generic
or "fixed", I think that would help us determine what has a use and what
has no use, getting implemented.
Fully disagree. Trying to say which of the use cases for the R between the zone operator and the
registry "has use" and "has no use" belongs in ICANN, not the IETF. It is not
an operations issue.
See above. I meant with "has use" in that someone can see deploying a
use case on its technical merits.
One of the possible outcomes of this document would be a way where the
DNS hoster and the registry can talk via a DNSSEC-authenticated method.
Err, how could that be the outcome of a use cases document? Or are you envisioning this
as also being a protocol document? (FWIW, I would love to have such a protocol, but I
think it's a bad idea to do it as a "use case".)
Eventually. Not through this use-cases documen, but a protocol document
that is written taking the use cases of this document into
consideration.
I imagine that could be useful to registrants, DNS hosters, registrars
and registries. But also within the non-RRR model of parent-child
relationship. The private/different API/EPP implementations is not
helping making DNSSEC deployment easy. That's what we're trying to
address.
So this is now a list of current practices that are not working?
That's part of it. Another part is new shiny awesome things we could
never do before :P
And remember that registries do change their policies and rules every third to
fourth year, that changes things.
If we have technology in place that can accomodate most, then over time,
hopefully that will change. Just like going from a non-EPP to an EPP
solution has slowly but surely gained more traction, and eased
deployment for registrars.
That's a business argument.
internet is business, yes?
That all seems fine. What does it have to do with describing the practices
today?
I attempted to describe how we could better facilicate automation using
DNSSEC - clearly that involves showing where the lack of DNSSEC now is
hampering automation currently.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
