Hi Jim,
On 7/25/25 12:06, Jim Reid wrote:
It seems too gTLD- and EPP- centric. Which seems fair enough if ICANN is the
target. However gTLDs are not the only players.
That's correct. I went over the text again and shifted it towards a more
general description.
The draft now only mentions EPP when there is really something additional to
say for when it is used, specifically:
- Section 2 mentions that, when using EPP, the registry can announce their TTL
policy this way;
- Section 3 says that the registry can inform the registrar of a change via EPP;
- Section 4 discusses locks, including the ones standardized for EPP (RFC 5731
Section 2.3).
In all cases, there is a qualification ("when using EPP", or as an example).
Other previous occurrences of EPP were removed or replaced with a more general
term, to make the text more agnostic about the type of parent-side deployment.
If you have any other suggestions for how the text can be improved in that
direction, please let me know!
I think the I-D needs to take account of the concerns/issues of ccTLDs and the
RIRs. Could the authors engage with those sectors and get their comments?
Yes, we're circulating this broadly, including with CENTR, APTLD, ICANN ccNSO,
RIRs / ICANN ASO etc.
I really dislike opening text beginning "This document/section".
Me too! But I'll leave this for a later revision.
Best,
Peter
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
