Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: EPP and DNAME records?

[Kim Davies]

The only TLD registry I am aware of that uses DNAME records is .gr, and in that 
instance, I believe they synthesize them from an LGR in a deterministic way and 
do not need to be provisioned by the customer.

kim

"regext on behalf of Francisco Arias"  wrote:

I cannot speak for .cat, but looking at zone file archives for their TLD, I 
haven't seen DNAMES for a while. I believe they stopped using DNAMEs at some 
point in the past.

-- 
Francisco

On 11/13/17, 12:20 AM, "regext on behalf of Edmon Chung" 
 wrote:

We actually do not use DNAME for IDN Variants at DotAsia.  IDN Variants 
are
delegated to the same set of NS as the primary IDN for .Asia.  
Nevertheless,
its prob good to revisit having a standard IDN Variant provisioning
extension (again) now with the progress in the LGR work...

Edmon



> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephane
Bortzmeyer
> Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2017 21:00 PM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?
> 
> [This comes from a discussion in DNSOP about a possible future 
.internal.]
> 
> Some TLD include DNAMEs (for instance .cat and .asia) but apparently 
only
as
> parts of an IDN bundle. Nevertheless, we could imagine a registry
accepting
> registrations implemented as a DNAME record, not NS records.
> 
> There is apparently no way to do it in EPP.
> 
> Would it make sense to create an extension (may be an addition to RFC
> 5731) to allow these "DNAME registrations"?
> 
> I'll be at the meeting tomorrow, if you prefer to discuss it AFK.
> 
> ___
> 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


___
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

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: first reason not to do EPP and DNAME records?

[Kim Davies]

Hi Stephane,

Quoting Stephane Bortzmeyer on Tuesday January 16, 2018:
> 
> One of the annoying things at IETF is that there is no clear directive
> on the order to do things which involve several stakeholders. At the
> discussion in dnsop about draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root, Kim Davies
> (IANA) suggested that it wasn't productive to discuss the policy part
> of the project since there isn't even an EPP mapping for it. So, what
> is the right order and who decides on it? (Personal advice: there is
> no order, things are faster when done in parallel.)

That is not quite what I said. I was responding to a thread on dnsop a
few months back where there was the suggestion that implementing support
for DNAME records in the root zone would be trivial. My view is that
it is not likely to be trivial, and as an illustrative example noted
"Just one of the many things that would need to be looked at is how to
transmit DNAME provisioning requests via EPP. I don't know if there is
even an EPP mapping for this."

My view on this work is that if there is a broader application for a
DNAME mapping, it is a good idea to standardize it. If it is really
only intended for the root zone, for a speculative future where we may
need to provision DNAME records, then I don't think it is necessary for
that reason alone. In such a scenario, there are alternatives such as
developing private extensions between the only two parties who would
ever be putting it to use.

kim

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