nanog mailing list archives
Re: Standard of Promptness
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:33:44 -0500
At 3:03 PM -0500 1/17/05, William Allen Simpson wrote:
... This will work even in the cases where the bogus domain registrant submits false contacts, such as happened in panix.com. There shouldn't be any reason to delay reversion to a known former state.
Bill, You indicate "a" known former state, which implies that you'd allow reverting back multiple changes under your proposed scheme... Out of curiosity, how far back would you allow one to revert to? Any previous state within the last two weeks? Longer, or shorter? Given the potential for disruption through fraudulent demands to revert, one has to carry over previous servers for at least this interval to be safe, or do I misunderstand your proposal? /John
Current thread:
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong!, (continued)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Steve Sobol (Jan 16)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Jim Shankland (Jan 16)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Steven J. Sobol (Jan 16)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Paul G (Jan 16)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Steve Sobol (Jan 19)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Alexei Roudnev (Jan 16)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 16)
- Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Richard Cox (Jan 17)
- Standard of Promptness William Allen Simpson (Jan 17)
- Re: Standard of Promptness Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Jan 18)
- Re: Standard of Promptness John Curran (Jan 18)
- RE: Standard of Promptness David Schwartz (Jan 18)
- RE: Standard of Promptness Tim Wilde (Jan 18)