> If DSYNC is an attribute of the registrars and resellers, then that could be a use case for the Organization EPP RFCs.
I'm hesitant to tie technical properties to legal relationships in this way. One legal entity may have very good reasons for multiple DSYNC servers. > Also, a registrar could handle the provisioning update stuff itself and then tell the reseller about it rather than expecting each reseller to create its own DNSSEC update logic. I think this just creates unnecessary complexity, and requires a registrar to support any updates to DSYNC etc before a reseller can. ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 18:36, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > It appears that Q Misell <q...@as207960.net> said: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >> You would only need an EPP extension in the scenario where different > >domains under the sponsorship of the same registrar would need different > >DSYNC information. > > > >This would very much be the case with resellers, or even a registrar using > >one ICANN accreditation for multiple somewhat operationally distinct > >brands. > > It depends. I resell Tucows and all my updates are routed through the > registry via their API. That could certainly work the other way, the > registrar gets the signal and forwards it to the reseller. > > Also, a registrar could handle the provisioning update stuff itself > and then tell the reseller about it rather than expecting each > reseller to create its own DNSSEC update logic. > > R's, > John >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
