02.txt
This was using well known URIs to publish whois data and the URI DNS RR.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
t?
I am probably less optimist than you.
But my understanding is that it seems you are trying to publish some
data to derive some "reputation" based on it, instead of really data to
be able to contact people. They are different goals probably.
--
Patrick Mevzek
pretty sure that even if you defined an EPP mapping to pass TTL
data, very few registries, if not none, would use it. But that is just
my opinion, I am not a registry nor speaking for them.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
was posted is not active any more, so besides my
own open source EPP client that implements it (I have a knack of doing
every EPP extension possible out there), I know nothing else about it.
The company's gitlab does not reference it anymore either.
HTH,
--
st discussions were productive. This has lead to the
> removal of the advice/example to use ZZ, as it was distracting from the point
> of the draft: these two-letter top level domains are available for
> private-use.
Thanks for the new draft version, the new content is useful inde
Orphaned glue can be used for abusive purposes; however, the dominant
use of orphaned glue supports the correct and ordinary operation of the
DNS. Thus it is inappropriate to include the management of orphaned
glue under the rubric of "abuse prevention and mitigation" and we
suggest th
very different.
See my other message where I quote ICANN resources where this question
is part of the application of any 2012-era gTLD operator.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 30/07/2020 16:55, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
- have the registry let the domain be deleted and then have domainB be
broken (which it is already in a way since the delegations to those
nameservers can be explicitly made broken; but the difference is between
registrar A breaking registrar B stuff
ITIES" or "ABILITIES"?
(or shorter version)
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
seen, in the realm
of just EPP, so much abuse or misunderstanding of the authInfo term,
that I wanted to convey the idea that even more confusion could be a curse).
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
d
above) in their ASCII encoding (e.g., “xn--ndk061n”).
Many ccTLDs have the same restriction.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
for other protocols.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
istries also allow only DNSKEY and deal with DS records themselves.
Some others ask registrars to send DNSKEY + DS, probably in order to
double check the DS was computed correctly.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://ww
freedom of choice
with respect to their hosting provider and use of the .tel web address.
This means you can use hosting or website services for your .tel domain
name provided by your current Retailer or any web hosting provider you
choose."
HTH,
--
Patrick Mevzek
__
already dry when registries
tried to use it, and as a developer of an abstract API over registrars
API which gets no traction, for the obvious reason outlined above.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
extension and even publish them as ID or RFC would be
great but not a simple task. We will see how EPPEXT goes along.
--
Patrick Mevzek
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Ready with Nits
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft
draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-dane-01
The DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Not Ready
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The DNS
Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as they pass through
IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose
of the review
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Ready with Nits
I reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-06 which was current version at time of
review.
The document, updating RFC 8109, does not introduce changes in the DNS protocol
or specifications, but gives guidance on best operational behavior for a
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Ready
I have reviewed previously draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-05
at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/pSqTcLhunIAULyz4v8ByXhp7cWg/
It was "Ready with Nits".
Looking at version 06 now,
the major points I raised hav
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Ready with Nits
Hi,
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-cds-consistency
Title: Clarifications on CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC Consistency
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Ready with Nits
I agree with previous dnsdir review of version 03 at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/fylDZkZJo58eRV_eL7UqxI2fccE
including
22 matches
Mail list logo
