[gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments

[Gustavo Lozano]

Thank you John,

Comments inline.

Regards,
Gustavo

On 7/8/13 4:54 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

>> Regarding email, the current idea is that the NSs for URS locking
>>provided
>> by the URS provider, reply with MX 0 . when queried for the MX of a URS
>> locked domain name.
>
>That would help, but since MX 0 . is not formally standardized* there's
>some other stuff that would help more.

GL - There are several ideas floating around regarding the
technical requirements of the URS provider, if you want to provide
feedback, 
you can send it to the list or to me.

We appreciate your feedback.


The MX 0 . approach appears to be well supported in MTAs
(even if not formal standardized) and should be easy to implement and
maintain from
the URS provider perspective.


>
>If I may ask a meta-question, who's writing on this spec, and who's
>providing technical and security advice?
>
>Regards,
>John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>Dummies",
>Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
>
>* - utterly by coincidence, I resuscitated a 2006 draft about it last
>week 
>to see if the IETF application area wants to do something about it
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5045 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20130708/6903f336/smime.p7s>