I might be mistaken, but I believe that IANA sends root updates to Verisign via EPP. In that light, we would need an EPP extension before IANA can adopt a policy to allow DNAME in the root.
Matthew Pounsett <m...@conundrum.com> schrieb am Mo., 15. Jan. 2018 um 20:10 Uhr: > On 15 January 2018 at 13:09, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> Already replied but see >>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lGdwGFO58iJ_dYYM9UR87Er9F5c >>> > >>> >> >> This answer just confirms my main point. Whether to put DNAMEs in the >> root is primarily a policy question. Even if you thought it was a good >> idea (which I still don't, see next message) there is no point to inventing >> an EPP extension unless and until there is a policy that lets them use it. >> >> If merely having the EPP feature was all it took, we'd have sunrise and >> redemption periods in the root. >> >> Perhaps I missed this upthread somewhere, but before we start talking > about EPP extensions for managing the root, shouldn't we talk about using > EPP to manage the root? Last I heard (May 2017, Spain) there was work > underway for a custom API for TLD->IANA changes that does not involve EPP. > I imagine shifting gears to replace that with an EPP interface would be a > significant undertaking by this time. > > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > -- Ulrich Wisser ulr...@wisser.se
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
