Hello
I fully agree with you.
Regards
marco
On 16.04.24 01:14, George Michaelson wrote:
I don't think the new protocol is just a new transport *LAYER* but I
also do support re-charter to include consideration of this protocol
suite.
My reasoning is that we're the people who are going to
Hi all,
I send this already to gtld-tech group and was then pointed to this group.
I wanted to ask if anyone has thought about the impact of NIS2 on EPP,
especially the validation of domain holder?
There are many issues here regarding protocol and processes. It would be good
to work
Hi Martin,
I can speak only from my side.
we parse the greating and activate from the response different modules
in our software.
If the namespace is not included, we have to manually add it somewhere.
Regards
Marco
Am 18.08.21 um 14:51 schrieb Martin Casanova:
>
> Thanks a lot Mario,
Hi Patrick, Dmitry, and all,
I think a new Contact Schema maybe even a new Org Schema are the best
solution.
Maybe not 2.0 only contact-1.1 that indicate only small changes.
It will also goes the normal way in Registry Registrar relation.
Registry announce a change of schemas and Registrar have
; JG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> James Gould
>
> Fellow Engineer
>
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
>
>
>
> 703-948-3271
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
>
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
Hi All,
I am completely with Ulrich.
>From policy side and also from aspect of clean data. Using dummy values
in objects was always a bad idea.
And even in GTLD space, the registrar usually have requirements to
verify the contacts. So not only registry must support the EAI also the
registrar
Hello,
Best rate limiting from my side is done by slowing down the requests.
It does not break the client even in other situations.
Regeards,
Marco
Am 17.01.20 um 15:30 schrieb Stephane Bortzmeyer:
> Sometimes, some clients are too talkative and, for instance, try
> too often to grab a
