Moving to peppiest is a market concentration movement, since it's expected that only a few DNS providers will be able to justify having permanent connection to registries to use them as DNS updating mechanisms.
DNS itself can be the enabler of a more inclusive way to do this. If it makes sense to do both, like a "hot channel" for Cloudflare, Dyn, UltraDNS and other massive providers, and one in-band signalling mechanism for the long tail, then let's do both... but it should probably start with the more open approach (roads) and then a more planned high-capacity method (railways). Rubens > On Feb 7, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Ed Pascoe wrote: > >> I don't think this needs to fall under DNSOP at all. Its probably more >> appropriate for the eppext group. > > And in fact we tried it in dnsop a few years ago, leading to a use-cases > document failure stuck between the Registrant-Registrar-Registry model > people, and the rest of the world. It dies and people just focused on > the DNS record updating part. > > So yes, +1 to taking this to eppext. > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
