In message , Paul Wouters w
rites:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Our audience should be the CPE developer with the one "turn on
> > DNSSEC" button which generates the keys, signs the zone, pushes
> > keys upstream at the right time. It has a username/password field
> > for zone
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Phillip Hallam-Baker:
>
> > But first, cite actual legal authority because I don't believe your
> > interpretation of the law is remotely correct.
>
> § 8 Abs. 3 TKÜV:
>
> | Wenn der Verpflichtete die ihm zur Übermittlung anvertraute
> |
* Phillip Hallam-Baker:
> But first, cite actual legal authority because I don't believe your
> interpretation of the law is remotely correct.
§ 8 Abs. 3 TKÜV:
| Wenn der Verpflichtete die ihm zur Übermittlung anvertraute
| Telekommunikation netzseitig durch technische Maßnahmen gegen
| unbefugt
Le dimanche 09 mars 2014 à 08:28 +, Patrik Fältström a écrit :
>
> On 2014-03-08 09:00, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for
> > machine updates to work. They could have quite easily got together
> > anytime in the last decade and done a stan
Le samedi 08 mars 2014 à 20:00 +1100, Mark Andrews a écrit :
> > > I know Registrars don't like to be told what to do
> >
> > +1
>
> But they get told to do EPP to talk to the registries.
>
> They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for
> machine updates to work. They could
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Phillip Hallam-Baker:
>
> > For a heavily trafficked resolver, the resolver-authoritative
> > interaction can be addressed with caching and by pre-fetching the
> > bulk of the requests. But this approach does not work so well for
> > the
On 2014-03-09 12:55, Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
>> Given this pricing structure, and that registries do change their
>> implementations far too often, where do you think registrars do spend
>> the money they have? They MUST support what the changes the registries
>> do, they do not HAVE TO implement
On 2014-03-09 12:55, Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
>
> Yes, there is. Let me explain how.
>
> Registries are using variants of the same protocol, EPP. Registries are
> typically serving exactly one name space. And this is where the lock-in for
> the registrar come in - there are no other registries
On 09 Mar 2014, at 13:19, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 2014-03-09 10:19, Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
>> But the fact is that EPP is several magnitudes better harmonized
>> between TLDs compared to that registrars are offering their
>> customers. There is no way around that today, and the registrars
On 2014-03-09 10:19, Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
> But the fact is that EPP is several magnitudes better harmonized
> between TLDs compared to that registrars are offering their
> customers. There is no way around that today, and the registrars have
> no incentive at all to improve the situation. For a
* Phillip Hallam-Baker:
> For a heavily trafficked resolver, the resolver-authoritative
> interaction can be addressed with caching and by pre-fetching the
> bulk of the requests. But this approach does not work so well for
> the lightly trafficked resolver and especially not a local resolver
> d
On 09 Mar 2014, at 09:28, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 2014-03-08 09:00, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for
>> machine updates to work. They could have quite easily got together
>> anytime in the last decade and done a standardised update prot
On 2014-03-08 11:47, Jim Reid wrote:
> Correction: some registrars are obliged to use EPP to talk to some registries.
Correction: epp is not one protocol. It is one protocol profile per
backend registry.
A big failure for IETF I must say.
The architecture is broken, but, luckily IETF has now t
On 2014-03-08 09:00, Mark Andrews wrote:
> They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for
> machine updates to work. They could have quite easily got together
> anytime in the last decade and done a standardised update protocol.
>
> But they haven't.
As long as the registries
14 matches
Mail list logo
