Patrick,

Again, thanks for providing the detailed information.  I provide my feedback 
embedded below.
  
—
 
JG



James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> 

On 7/17/18, 3:45 AM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" 
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote:

    * some registries allow, in domain:create, either attributes or objects for 
host.
    One might say this is against the core EPP specification, so do we want to 
treat it?
  
JG - RFC 5731 states "A server operator MUST use one name server specification 
form consistently", so if a registry does support more than one form it should 
define that policy in a server-specific policy extension.  
  
    * some registries do not allow all possible values for IP addresses. For 
example one is saying that it will
    refuse any IP provided if it is in  RFC 1918 or 3330 or 3927 or 4193 or 
3879.
    Of course other registries may have the same exclusion list or another. So 
that should be expressed.

JG - Good point, there are invalid IP ranges.  I don't believe we want to embed 
the list of invalid IP ranges within the Registry Mapping, but it may make 
sense to enable referencing an external resource (e.g., URL) that does define 
it.  
    
    * one registry has this: at most 4 IP addresses but at least one IPv4 if 
some are provided.
    Which means you can not solve this even by just min+max for both IPv4 or 
IPv6
    Because IPv4 min is 1 if IPv6 is present, otherwise 0. You can not say 
min=0 always because
    then it will allow a set with only one IPv6 address, which the registry 
disallow.
 
JG - This is a very unique policy that is best met by the registry to defined a 
server policy extension.  
   
    * again around operations possible/not possible, one registry says for 
example: host:name can not be updated
    if it would then become a glue without any IP or become an external host 
with an IP.
    
JG - Doesn't the policies defined for an internal and external host already 
cover this?  If there is a host update that changes an internal host to an 
external host, or vice-versa, the new host must follow the appropriate defined 
policy.  
    
    -- 
      Patrick Mevzek
    
    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    regext@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
    

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to