To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Date:
Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:26:37 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<4AEEAFAC.4030805@publisher.de>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 11:08:44AM +0100, Ulrich Wisser wrote: > Why would the RFC have to define an order of execution? Can't that be > left to registry policy decision? As long as the order is consistent of > course. It has to be the order in which the commands are sent, otherwise it's possible for someone to send the command removing all DS records with a given keyTag, and then to add a new one with the same keyTag (thereby effecting the wholesale replacement of a given DS) and actually have the server process it as add,remove. The upshot would be, of course, that there would be no DS at that owner name, which is not the client's intention. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se