Dear Jim and Mohsen, On 16:25 14/05/03, Jim Reid said:
"JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> writes:
JFC> When I cannot register a ".fr" or a ".tp" name because of the JFC> retsrictions imposed by their NICs I am upset. I would prefer JFC> - and I would be gratefull - if they told me what is wrong I JFC> could correct when I want, but securing the DN in the JFC> meanwhile?
This is really something to discuss with the registry concerned.
We are just talking of restrictions imposed by registry BPs. BPs should say that restrictions are to be documented both in plain text and decribing case per case the tested reasons of a denial so one can document when the testing is wrong. BPs should also say that the intended registration should be valid when the denial of registration is due to its wrong analysis of the registrant configuration. There is no reason why the first come first served rule would defeated by an error of the Registry. BPs could say that the registry should provide its proposed DNS configuration, so the Registrant could implement it to get registered.
JFC> Example: when the nameserver is on the same machine as the JFC> site, I never understood why I would need two name servers.
Read section 3.3 of RFC2182. In fact, read the whole RFC.
This is exactly the section I find inadequate to the case. We all know that. The problem is that some Regustries want to enforce it without discrimination. If the secondary is on the same machine - as I documented - or on the next one or at the other end of the world. It will _not_ improve the average response time to get the information, and will only disseminate a _wrong_ information when the master and the host on the same machine are down. Registry BP should force Registries to accept such registration under the responsiblity of the Registrant as does ".ws". We are talking about BPs you are going to discuss. Good BPs should not lead registrants to trick the Registry: it should consider all the cases and best support the Registrant in every case IMHO.
JFC> I would be really interested if Patrick's work permitted JFC> that: to tell me what may be wrong in my files and to teach JFC> me to correcty right them?
Well, someone from AFNIC will be talking about their new delegation checking tools and processes at the WG tomorrow. The presentation should be on the RIPE web site by early next week at the latest.
I'm hoping the WG will use tomorrow's session on delegation checking to work on this topic: perhaps produce a BCP or something like that. If this gets under way, it would be useful to get contributions on things like the nature of error messages and so on.
Certainly ready to help there. Will you address IDNA? jfc http://eurolinc.org