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 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
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
On 8 Mar 2014, at 09:00, Mark Andrews wrote:
> But they get told to do EPP to talk to the registries.
Correction: some registrars are obliged to use EPP to talk to some registries.
The followup to that is all TLD registries are exactly the same. Except where
they are different.
Even in ICANN
In message , Paul Hoffm
an writes:
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > 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 w
On Mar 7, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I know Registrars don't like to be told what to do
+1
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 7 Mar 2014, at 10:05, Mark Andrews wrote:
> What do we expect CPE devices to implement to update parent
> zones. 100 different things to cover all the update methods
> registrar's come up with. Or do we say do exactly one
> method that works in all situations?
>
>
What do we expect CPE devices to implement to update parent
zones. 100 different things to cover all the update methods
registrar's come up with. Or do we say do exactly one
method that works in all situations?
We already have a problem today were they ca
14 matches
Mail list logo
