Dear Stephane, thank you for your remarks. I must say that I did not validate many ".fr" due to the AFNIC resales organization, naming structure and my own users orientations, so my experience with your (our fr) program is limited (and no-experience since IDNA). But we are talking about BPs and my point is certainly that the Registry community should take advantage from AFNIC's efforts (may be smoothing some rigidities - but maybe this has been done?). I want to incitate this experience to be used when considerng BPs. There is no reason when something good is made by some not to tell it. My other point is that such proposed BPs draft should be reveiwable by the @large community(ies). Thank you. jfc At 09:34 15/05/03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:24:44PM +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote a message of 64 lines which said:
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.
They are. Any one can see it by itself at http://zonecheck.nic.fr/v2/.
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.
It is not (the ticket is not closed immediately when there is a configuration error).
BPs could say that the registry should provide its proposed DNS configuration, so the Registrant could implement it to get registered.
For which software? BIND8, BIND9, nsd, PowerDNS?
Will you address IDNA?
Yes.
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 06/05/03