Re: [DNSOP] CDS and/or CDNSKEY

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 08 October 2013 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D23921F9248 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1subL4kJe3Fq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8124221F9B90 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3185C94B9; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:06:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1381269992; bh=tnLmysKd4nGLPD29mR47wtRhns7tzBfItIMw0abqDTo=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=vA5KmRx9A73Zs0dxxJ/M/K/sK5L0K7HY/Oy5Dcbb0Gxkh/BKnuWWGdmNn+Ycp/dFu V3aHIkI5wZTiYdKstqTU8KmmdnWlxMqa2LKniZHoSDWOSRdTznuXWfYqt7U3xlpKCe yBq6Qpv4AIdN/71jZkZGyqoj9vCMQ5xgPyN3/evU=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:06:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90271160470; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:09:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61124160030; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:09:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFB67F3D07; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:06:08 +1100 (EST)
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <5243DCAB.80507@nlnetlabs.nl> <311D023E-9425-416E-B3E6-96F3347F162B@kumari.net> <52451D58.5040107@nlnetlabs.nl> <FC382AE9-C360-47B3-B1B6-35276C624AAC@kumari.net> <524D9B65.30704@teamaol.com> <52543899.3090801@dougbarton.us> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1310081408570.7675@bofh.nohats.ca> <52545387.2010607@dougbarton.us> <24BAD69C-F0AA-4F33-8A3D-536494864D34@vpnc.org> <525466A5.6000006@dougbarton.us> <A1CA88FF-4008-477B-A917-0AAE37AF927B@kumari.net> <52546BFE.7050904@dougbarton.us>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:33:02 -0700." <52546BFE.7050904@dougbarton.us>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:06:08 +1100
Message-Id: <20131008220608.BFFB67F3D07@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CDS and/or CDNSKEY
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:06:44 -0000

In message <52546BFE.7050904@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 10/08/2013 01:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > In many regulatory environments (the polite way of saying where ICANN
> > says "No!")
> 
> Just FYI, it's not ICANN that says no. It's the registrars who do not 
> want ANY channel of communication with their customers that does not go 
> through them. ICANN simply provides a context around which to solidify 
> the agreed upon relationships contractually.

So TLD's should no longer answer DNS requests from any Registrant?
Yes that is a CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION.

Providing a relay agent is no different to providing a nameserver
in term of interacting with the Registrant.  It is not direct
acceptance of updates.  The Registrar is still the gating entity.
This is machine to machine not person to person which is what the
intent of the agreement of no communication is about.

> > the *registrar*  will fetch the CDS / CDNSKEY and will
> > push the updated records into the *registry*  through existing
> > mechanisms (like EPP).
> 
> Right, so instead of convincing hundreds of registries you're going to 
> convince thousands of registrars? And you've had exactly how much 
> interest from them?
> 
> Doug
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org