Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-regext-brown-epp-ttl-01.txt

[Gavin Brown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas, 

Thanks for the suggestions. I will add them to the next version.

G.

> On 15 Sep 2022, at 01:11, Thomas Corte (TANGO support) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 9/14/22 13:35, Gavin Brown wrote:
> 
>> Greetings all,
>> 
>> Many years ago CentralNic had a proprietary EPP extension for managing
>> the TTL values of domain names. ...
>> 
>> However I've had a bit of feedback about the draft since then, so I've
>> just published a new version and am now sharing it with the WG for
>> feedback.
> 
> I have two comments:
> 
> 1) The specification should probably address the effect of the TTLs on 
> IDN variants. If a registry supports IDN variants as attributes of a 
> domain name (either automatically added or via an extension), they will 
> usually add some DNS records dedicated to these variants to the TLD zone, 
> so the spec should specify that the same TTL is applied to these 
> dedicated records as well. If IDN variants are managed as their own 
> objects, they can receive their own specific TTL values.
> 
> 2) I'd suggest to add this boilerplate text (or something similar) to the 
> draft:
> 
>   "EPP uses XML namespaces to provide an extensible object management
>    framework and to identify schemas required for XML instance parsing
>    and validation.  These namespaces and schema definitions are used to
>    identify both the base protocol schema and the schemas for managed
>    objects.  The XML namespace prefixes used in examples (such as the
>    string "ttl" in "xmlns:ttl") are solely for illustrative purposes.  A
>    conforming implementation MUST NOT require the use of these or any
>    other specific namespace prefixes."
> 
> This is a pet peeve of mine, as some registries still haven't managed to 
> implement this correctly.
> 
>> In our implementation, glue records are only published if the
>> superordinate domain is delegated to them, and the current
>> specification assumes the same design choice. However this is
>> obviously not true for other registries, so being able to change the
>> TTL on a host object independently of the superordinate domain may be
>> needed to account for scenarios where the client wishes to change the
>> TTL of all NS records *except* those of the superordinate domain.
>> However I am not sure if this is a scenario that justifies the
>> additional complexity entailed - but I'd appreciate the list's input
>> on that point.
> 
> Our own TANGO system's zone generation also suppresses glue records if 
> they're unnecessary, so I'd agree that the extra complexity shouldn't be 
> required.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> -- 
> TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
> Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
> Technologiepark                             Phone: [phone]
> Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: [phone]
> D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: [e-mail]
> Germany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Gavin Brown
Head of Registry Services
CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
https://centralnicregistry.com

Cal: https://cnic.link/gbcalendar

CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: Saddlers House, Gutter Lane, London EC2V 6BR.

https://www.centralnic.com