It appears that Edward Lewis  <eppdnsprotoc...@gmail.com> said:
>My first concern is that if the entries under _deleg.$parent will “leak” the 
>registrar (when applicable) of a name for names
>that are run by operators that are not also registrars for the name.  I don’t 
>know if this is a business concern. 

It's a business decision. If the registry doesn't want that to happen, they can 
run a
NOTIFY proxy. In practice, if you look at the NS records you can see who's 
runing the DNS,
and it's not hard to tell which NS are run by registrars.

>My second concern relates to failed requests for services - i.e., a NOTIFY is 
>sent to update a domain’s records.  After some time
>passes the respondent discovers the domain is locked, thus the request cannot 
>be satisfied.  How the requestor is able to associate
>the error with the request that is not being satisfied?

See RFC 1996, section 4.8.

>During EPP development time, there was a concern over errors that emerged 
>after the message exchange was finished.  Queues had to
>be created by servers for clients and a mechanism to poll for queued messages. 
> This experience is what makes mention the second
>concern.

Remember that the notification is just a hint. Whatever receives the NOTIFY 
might decide
to try the update on its own, so I don't see any new issues here. You're right 
that if a
CDS key roll doesn't happen, there is no way to tell the child what the problem 
was, but
that's been true as long as there's been CDS.

R's,
John


_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to