To:
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr>
CC:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, James M Woods <jwoods@netstormit.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:11:42 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<20021115111336.A5596@james.nic.fr>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021114
Subject:
Re: last-verified-date
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC wrote:
> Hello Klaus,
>
>
>>Just for clarity: The registry does not manage the in-zone name servers
>>authoritatively neither.
>
>
> it depend which registry, the world is not only a question of EPP.
>
> In principle, as clients can be anyware in the world if you want a protocol
> which is usable under national legislations (like the german one for example:)
> you want to be sure that EPP servers are configurable so that those *political*
> and surely not *technical* matters can be dealt appropriatly by any registry.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier
Hi Olivier,
I meant this purely technically. The A/AAAA/A6 record of the name server in the
innermost zone is the only authoritative source of the IP address of a name
server. Therefore, the linkage of the name server to its superordinated domain
is a bad design, as they do not necessarily need to be defined in the same zone
(due to the feature of subdelegation) and therefore may be in different
administration "spheres" (to use another term than "domain").
By the way: Following the discussions here in this list, I sometimes get the
impression that the argument "this is a registry policy and therefore should not
be part of EPP" and its complement are just used as needed to exclude/include
certain parts from/into the specs.
regards,
Klaus
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund
Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0