On 10/8/19 7:34 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
I'm curious about this. I thought all of the logic required was on the
Keith Moore<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
I was thinking more in terms of a new DNS RR type:
example.com DOTNS ns1.example.com
There are interesting problems with using extra delegation records to
The DNS protocol has to have special logic for every RRtype that appears
at a delegation, so you would need some kind of signalling to indicate
that this is OK for all the parties involved. (I have not thought about
the details of what would be required...)
You also need to upgrade EPP so that registrars can get the extra records
into the registry database so that the registry can put them in the TLD.
Ah, that makes sense.
But I've been convinced for at least 20 years that the DNS protocol
needed an upgrade path anyway, and that having new kinds of "NS" records
was the only good way to do it. So to me the effort required to add
support for new delegation records seems like a necessary investment.
And then wait an indefinite time for the registrars to upgrade their
customer-facing interfaces so that you can tell them about the extra
Yes, this is a given. One of the big problems with the
registry-registrar model is that registrars get too much latitude about
their customer interfaces.
ietf-smtp mailing list