On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:12:05AM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:
issue I have had one zone flat rejected by two registrars and was told by another after some discussion quite authoritatively that although they would let it slide, DENIC wouldn't allow it and the same would go for any .CH or .AT domain. I'm currently batting 1 for 3 against.
I'd recommend that for "authoritative" answers on registration policy the registry's documentation be consulted.
It's been my experience that the registrars typically run their web scripts on the zone and if it doesn't pass their test (which include the RIPE-203 recommendations), then your request is rejected. After
If that were the case it would be ill-advised. RIPE-203 clearly states its target audience *and* intentionally does not offer any intervals but instead recommends fixed values for the various SOA fields. I'm not aware of a registry that would insist on fixed particular numbers here.
you call them and finally reach someone who can help you, they point to RIPE-203, end of discussion. I have no problem trying to take this up with individual registrars but it feels like battling windmills. I
Let's please keep two issues separate: 1) potential updates to RIPE-203 due to ambuguity or changed premises 2) alleged or evidenced use of RIPE-203 as a basis for policy or policy enforcement You see to have run into a problem with (2), but that does not necessarily call for a change to RIPE-203.
have a stealth primary master with a private IP, no RFC 1918 address pollution and no dynamic updates configured for this zone at all. What is a sysadmin to do?
Pick one of the announced name servers? -Peter