[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Starting from Scratch

[DANIEL NANGHAKA]

Dear All,

It looks as though we have started the deliberation and getting in deep
waters. Are we going according to the workplan?
ᐧ


Regards
Nanghaka Daniel K.
Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Council Member - FOSSFA / Community
Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter
Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda)
Skype: daniel.nanghaka

----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" *
-----------------------------------------



On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am afraid we are going in too much detail...too EARLY for that !
>
> Best Regards
>
> Best Regards
> --ff--
>
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
> Le 5 juil. 2016 16:49, "Rob Golding" <rob.golding at astutium.com> a écrit :
>
>>   registrar
>>>>
>>> Only in TLD that have a registry/registrar model. (And we are only
>>> concerned about gTLD in this WG, right?)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, as a WG we're essentially only concerned with gTLDs under ICANNs
>> remit, so they all have a Registry/Registrar model (even if the Registrar
>> on a brand-tld could be the Registry)
>>
>>   auth-code
>>>>
>>> Also note that this is not baked into DNS technology or anything like
>>> that, but is only an artifact of a current registrar transfer system.
>>> Fundamentally this is a way to authenticate the registrant, which is
>>> what the registry really needs.
>>>
>>
>> It's less about authentication of the Registrant, and more about ensuring
>> authorisation has been gained for the Transfer.
>>
>>   status
>>>>
>>> What does this mean?
>>>
>>
>> Domains are (currently) required to have "status" code(s) relating to
>> locks, udrp etc - but on further reflection it's not absolutely necessary
>> for the domain name to exist or function (although will be there
>> "internally" at the Registry)
>>
>> And for it to be of some "functional" use:
>>>> Optional
>>>>   nameservers
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also optionally:
>>>    DS record (or DNSKEY or other cryptographic information which can be
>>>    used to produce a DS record for DNSSEC).
>>>
>>
>> Is the most-effective Denial-Of-Service methodology for domains actually
>> needed for it to "work" though (leaving aside how many dont work because of
>> dnssec) ? Probably.
>>
>> So ...
>>
>> To Exist =
>> * domain-name (what it is)
>> * registrar (who manages it)
>>
>> To Function [optional] =
>> * nameservers
>> * ds-stuff
>>
>> To Manage / Needed for Internal Systems =
>> * transfer authentication [optional dependant on registration model]
>> * expiry date
>> * status
>>
>>
>> As a final note, if there are no registrars then everything except for
>>> the expiry date can be obtained from the DNS itself.
>>>
>>
>> In principle I agree - I'm sure we can argue the minutiae of detail about
>> whether it needs to be somewhere else for DNS to work though
>>
>> Anyone else have items to add which are _required_ rather than
>> one-or-more of wants/nice-to-have/needed-for-my-business-model etc ?
>>
>>
>> Rob
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160705/afb4f4dd/attachment.html>