On 1/31/24, 13:04, "DNSOP on behalf of Dave Lawrence" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of t...@dd.org> wrote: > > Edward Lewis writes: > > The impact on the registration system wasn’t raised at the table. > > Not entirely true. We did recognize that there'd need to be an EPP > draft too.
Ah, yes. Joe suggested not making changes to the registration process (I'm not using system) to ease DELEG into the existing registration systems (here I am). What I recall from the table is that it was suggested to avoid changing the namespace (tree), the notion of zones, and the stub resolver experience, we didn't consider barring changes to the registration process. However, in elevating operators into the protocol we did talk about the need to have registration information to support this. So, yeah, what I wrote wasn't accurate, what I was thinking was that we hadn't tried to keep registration as it is. I see DELEG as an enabler, not an end goal. It will be deployed because it'll enable improvements (even if only reduction in operator pain/costs), so it needs to be deployed ahead of the gains. Joe raises a good point about this first phase, DELEG-implementing code needs to be distributed before it'll start to offer a payoff. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
