Jay,
--On 3 March 2010 13:40:53 +1300 Jay Daley wrote:
I'm sure we could and an automated update of DS records is a good idea.
But my point is that in the absence of a similar automated mechanism for
NS records we use cut and paste and it works fine and there is nothing
about DS records that i
On 3/2/2010 12:43 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> An omnibus reply.
A mini bus reply. :)
I've read through this thread and I generally agree with Ed's analysis.
Throwing in some more bullet points:
1. There MUST be an OOB (where the B is DNS) channel for initial zone
configuration, contact info change
In message , Edward Lewis writes:
> At 12:34 +1100 3/3/10, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >I recommend something that is UPDATE + TSIG like. The child's key manager
> >component can send the updates.
>
> With the concern about keeping key management separate from the
> Internet, opening up the master se
On 02/03/2010 7:40 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
On 3/03/2010, at 1:36 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
That I don't. Currently the registrant's DNS provider tells them "cut and paste this
blob from here into the field marked 'nameservers' in your registrar's interface" and to
that they wil
At 0:42 + 3/3/10, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
hum... maybe I should be hounding Ed on this... but I think we should
draw a bright line... we are (imho) talking about pushing DS records
from child to parent. entirely w/in the perview of the DNS
protocol/wg.
for
In message <20100303004242.gd24...@vacation.karoshi.com.>, bmann...@vacation.ka
roshi.com writes:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 08:05:38PM +, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > Ed,
> >
> > --On 2 March 2010 14:39:45 -0500 Edward Lewis wrote:
> >
> > >Telling someone one to change the name server from "ns1.e
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:40:53PM +1300, Jay Daley wrote:
> > there is a problem w/ cut/paste ... surely we could do better than that?
>
> I'm sure we could and an automated update of DS records is a good idea. But
> my point is that in the absence of a similar automated mechanism for NS
>
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 08:05:38PM +, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Ed,
>
> --On 2 March 2010 14:39:45 -0500 Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> >Telling someone one to change the name server from "ns1.example.tld." to
> >"newdns.example." or "127.0.10.2 to 192.0.2.3" is easier than saying
> >change something fro
On 3/03/2010, at 1:36 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>
>> That I don't. Currently the registrant's DNS provider tells them "cut and
>> paste this blob from here into the field marked 'nameservers' in your
>> registrar's interface" and to that they will add "cut and paste this blob
>
> That I don't. Currently the registrant's DNS provider tells them "cut and
> paste this blob from here into the field marked 'nameservers' in your
> registrar's interface" and to that they will add "cut and paste this blob
> from here into the field marked 'DS record' in your registrar's in
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:04:46AM +0100, Wolfgang Nagele wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > granted that this discussion is important and folks
> > interested in this might be at the IETF77, could we
> > either have a bof (formal) or a small lunch mtg
> > during the week of IETF77?
> >
> >
On 3/2/10 3:43 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> An omnibus reply.
> ...
>
> At 14:58 -0500 3/2/10, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> I'm quite interested in the EPPbis area, and the DS provisioning
>> problem, but I'm spending my wicked limited travel time until mid-May
>> (my partner's a 1L at Cornell Law
An omnibus reply.
At 8:52 +1300 3/3/10, Jay Daley wrote:
Did you mean to exclude the DNS path for those that choose it? Isn't it is
a registry/DNS parent policy decision.
At one level of description, yes, at another, no. If the underlying
mechanism for the interface uses a DNS query to get
Ed,
--On 2 March 2010 14:39:45 -0500 Edward Lewis wrote:
Telling someone one to change the name server from "ns1.example.tld." to
"newdns.example." or "127.0.10.2 to 192.0.2.3" is easier than saying
change something from:
"94DC01F2763CCB12F4B66AC63910830BC34082F6FE95CD75DAA3C5B37F99DD81"
to:
"
On 3/2/10 9:38 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 10:43 +0100 3/2/10, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>> > either have a bof (formal) or a small lunch mtg
>> > during the week of IETF77?
>> >
>> > I'd be glad to attend.
>> ...
>>
>> going to be there and he agreed to attend the
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Jay Daley wrote:
>
> That I don't. Currently the registrant's DNS provider tells them "cut
> and paste this blob from here into the field marked 'nameservers' in
> your registrar's interface" and to that they will add "cut and paste
> this blob from here into the field marked '
On 3/03/2010, at 3:38 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Only in the last week did it sink into me that the problem is that we need a
> way to push DS records along the established registration path and not the
> DNS operations path.
Did you mean to exclude the DNS path for those that choose it? Isn
On 3/03/2010, at 8:39 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Two reasons why the transfer is different although the path is the same:
>
> 1) Timing of the transfer.
>
> 1a First the DS record will be "in motion" much more frequently than an NS or
> address record would be.
>
> 1b Second the DS record will
At 19:17 + 3/2/10, Alex Bligh wrote:
Ed,
--On 2 March 2010 09:38:50 -0500 Edward Lewis wrote:
Only in the last week did it sink into me that the problem is that we
need a way to push DS records along the established registration path and
not the DNS operations path. What this means -
Ed,
--On 2 March 2010 09:38:50 -0500 Edward Lewis wrote:
Only in the last week did it sink into me that the problem is that we
need a way to push DS records along the established registration path and
not the DNS operations path. What this means - for registries that
operate DNS and have dire
At Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:53:53 +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> The path is usualy even more complicated.
> I've identified this stream of contractual relationships in a
> registration process:
>
> registry-registrar-reseller-registrant-dns_operator
>
> (some roles may be duplicated or absent, some
At 16:53 +0100 3/2/10, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
The question is whether we need to follow this administrative path.
"We" do for some value of $we. If you are a registry, then you can
develop one interface that all of your registrants have to use. But
if you are not a registry you will deal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> -Original Message-
> From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Edward Lewis
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] automatic update of DS records
>
> For registries that deal exclusively with registrars, the
> registrant'
At 10:43 +0100 3/2/10, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>either have a bof (formal) or a small lunch mtg
>during the week of IETF77?
>
>I'd be glad to attend.
...
going to be there and he agreed to attend the BoF.
Note, it is way past the time to request a
> either have a bof (formal) or a small lunch mtg
> during the week of IETF77?
>
> I'd be glad to attend.
...
going to be there and he agreed to attend the BoF.
Note, it is way past the time to request a BOF so I geuss the only
option is something inform
Hi,
> granted that this discussion is important and folks
> interested in this might be at the IETF77, could we
> either have a bof (formal) or a small lunch mtg
> during the week of IETF77?
>
> I'd be glad to attend.
There has been interest in this at least since I
26 matches
Mail list logo
