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

Reply via email to