Re: [DNSOP] CPE devices doing DNSSEC

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Sun, 09 March 2014 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F1E1A017E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 00:28:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7uYtG0cnjiz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 00:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487F41A0160 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 00:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ix-2.local (unknown [31.55.33.169]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B57362291D; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 09:28:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <531C2637.6020405@frobbit.se>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:28:39 +0000
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@frobbit.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@cybersecurity.org>
References: <20140307100524.2F42810CD58F@rock.dv.isc.org> <A0D47DA8-6E19-4A61-8A7C-FE960A0FA7E9@cybersecurity.org> <20140308090009.5E51210D1595@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140308090009.5E51210D1595@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tL4PWlFGjsfxaRL9rKfrGKvHMvCnbhAIc"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/H1l4YYMElT40uBilod-m3SpEqJU
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CPE devices doing DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:28:52 -0000


On 2014-03-08 09:00, Mark Andrews wrote:
> They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for
> machine updates to work.  They could have quite easily got together
> anytime in the last decade and done a standardised update protocol.
> 
> But they haven't.

As long as the registries have _NOT_ unified their extensions of
whatever fluffy things they want, so that I as a registrar _really_ can
use the same EPP implementation to more than one (backend) registry,
then registrars have to spend energy and real $$ to implement those
incompatibilities. And do not have so much interest at all to do more
than many an API that is specific for them that faces the registrant.

We have been through this hundreds of times before and I think the
blaming _registrars_ as the ones that have an incompatible portion of
the system must stop.

Now.

   Patrik