[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:08:16 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1267693698; x=1299229698; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk|Subject:=20Re:=20[ietf -provreg]=20RFC4310bis=20document=20writeup|Date:=20Thu, =204=20Mar=202010=2009:08:16=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<OF243 C1A54.4DCC81EB-ON802576DC.00311330-802576DC.00323207@nomi net.org.uk>|To:=20Olafur=20Gudmundsson=20<ogud@ogud.com> |Cc:=20iesg@ietf.org,=0D=0A=09EPP=20Provreg=20<ietf-provr eg@cafax.se>|MIME-Version:=201.0|In-Reply-To:=20<4B8F235F .6020301@ogud.com>|References:=20<4B8F235F.6020301@ogud.c om>; bh=XHJ2uj1Wli3RZmJnmw7IJJKLADJ9kUECDgCiAkm+zcg=; b=lH2EHLEVelCBJWn4lFDi8cq/bGHZC080S4WpMZqZ1au42WGHeLWtvw/0 47fWHiZkVQJnHA8xSYBqWv1QYtIRYQHTuGTLJCDXJP5MdpVku9obKu0+f Xm3pJdojD11dvD7;
DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc: Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date: X-MIMETrack:Content-Type; b=IUANUbOB3e0GJIld2oO+B82Kvv8ORPyZCLP8rZEAJnEU368ByKISuOcI QZ3ZGSGllRkoqQwWvFHs6OnsrYqdkw+ALtjwYeiF8HYl/bKaLBYYptyJy gkz97w5K9oXkoab;
In-Reply-To: <4B8F235F.6020301@ogud.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RFC4310bis document writeup


> Version 07 a nits pass
Olafur,

There's actually some substantial new text in §4 introduced between the -06 and the -07  versions to address my comments about <secdns:dsData> vs <secdns:keyData>.

In particular the newly documented requirement that EPP clients have to "remove all" and then re-insert DNSSEC data in order to migrate from one format to the other on a _per_domain_ basis may have significant design and implementation overhead that was not previously anticipated.

I'm still trying to grok the implications of this new text, and am consulting with our EPP implementors as to whether this is considered too arduous a requirement to be written in stone in the draft.

kind regards,

Ray

--
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
e: ray@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211


Home | Date list | Subject list