I personally think an exact match is best. The represented fee is that of
the server, not what the Registrar will charge the registrant (which could
be above or below the registry price).
If we want to ensure that the Registrar correctly understands the price at
the time of transaction, then exact
I personally think an exact match is best. The represented fee is that of
the server, not what the Registrar will charge the registrant (which could
be above or below the registry price).
If we want to ensure that the Registrar correctly understands the price at
the time of transaction, then exac
pinions that an exact match is required.
My favorite is still reduce the text to keep it intentionally “underspecified”.
best,
Alex
Von: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Gould, James
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 12:22
An: Pat Moroney; Feher, Kal; regext@ietf.org&
ut the use case for name registries would be very narrow
and potentially worse for the registrant and certainly in breach of
current gTLD requirements for zone contents.
Kal Feher
On 13/11/17, 10:02, "'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:
Why wouldnt we have DNAME at the apex of the registered name? Ie
controlled by the domain owner.
I may be missing something of the use case here.
Kal Feher
On 13/11/17, 00:20, "regext on behalf of Edmon Chung"
wrote:
>We actually do not use DNAME for IDN Variants at DotAsia. IDN Variants
ar Inc.
Melbourne, Australia
On 13/11/17, 11:09, "regext on behalf of 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'"
wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 02:26:00AM +,
> Feher, Kal wrote
> a message of 34 lines which said:
>
>> certainly in breach of current gTLD requirements f
