Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

Jacques Latour (CIRA.CA) made a proposal on the dnssec-auto...@elists.isoc.org mailing list some weeks ago: Adding External DNS Operator Role in RRR Model to better support DNSSEC Deployment.docx https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/dnssec-auto-ds/2014-November/01.html Daniel _

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

I don't think this needs to fall under DNSOP at all. Its probably more appropriate for the eppext group. You would need to convince the registry to allow you access to the host object for a particular domain, probably an out of band operation requiring agreement between registry, registrar, regist

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

> Ed Pascoe > Friday, February 06, 2015 5:32 AM > I don't think this needs to fall under DNSOP at all. Its probably more > appropriate for the eppext group. +1. -- Paul Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://ww

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

not true. When this model was created, no one one thought that DNS service might be provided by someone other than Registrant and Registrar. and +1 on sending this to eppext. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > > and +1 on sending this to eppext. Why do NS records get treated differently from DS records? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ Lundy, Fastnet: Northeasterly 5 or 6, occasionally 7 in south. Moderate or rough in south, moderate in north. Mainly fair.

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > > Why do NS records get treated differently from DS records? History: some registries still think that DNSSEC is a new experiment and don't want to spend the effort to support it until it is "real". Risk: a registry saying that it will update DS

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

> Paul Hoffman > Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM > > History: some registries still think that DNSSEC is a new experiment > and don't want to spend the effort to support it until it is "real". perhaps the apparent need for negative trust anchors has bolstered the

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

On 2/6/15 9:49 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: note: i'm not a hater. color me a "hater". the imposition of dnssec on all 2013 new gtld applicants was abuse of applicants, not all of whom are speculators burning other peoples' money in pursuit of the trademark defense-and-infringement and clickbait sa

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Ed Pascoe wrote: I don't think this needs to fall under DNSOP at all. Its probably more appropriate for the eppext group.  And in fact we tried it in dnsop a few years ago, leading to a use-cases document failure stuck between the Registrant-Registrar-Registry model people

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

Moving to peppiest is a market concentration movement, since it's expected that only a few DNS providers will be able to justify having permanent connection to registries to use them as DNS updating mechanisms. DNS itself can be the enabler of a more inclusive way to do this. If it makes sens

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

>> History: some registries still think that DNSSEC is a new experiment >> and don't want to spend the effort to support it until it is "real". > >perhaps the apparent need for negative trust anchors has bolstered the >sense that DNSSEC is still experimental. or perhaps it's the fact that >after 19