Standard of Promptness
jcurran at istaff.org
Tue Jan 18 03:33:44 UTC 2005
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.
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?
More information about the NANOG