|
|
|
|
|
by fanf2
1343 days ago
|
|
I don't think .at is mismanaged, quite the opposite, but in the way of many ccTLDs it is a little bit eccentric. I don't know why route53 might not support them: perhaps it's to do with contractual faff, or possibly because nic.at uses a less common flavour of EPP. (Sadly the common flavour of EPP has a bonkers data model; a few ccTLDs use an alternative model with a more sensible data model, but although the more sensible flavour of EPP is easier to use in isolation, it has the downside of being different from the ICANN flavour.) |
|
> a little bit eccentric
Stereotype checks out :D