From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Oct 9 11:21:38 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24308 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7cbp-0007bk-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:21:46 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7cbp-0007bg-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:21:45 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99F6N6K011788 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h99F6Nsm011787 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:23 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([209.167.124.227]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99F6M6K011782 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dev3.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.2.204] helo=libertyrms.info) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 1A7cMt-00041V-00 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:06:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3F85796C.43255F82@libertyrms.info> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:06:20 -0400 From: janusz sienkiewicz Organization: LibertyRMS Co. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] optional elements and server policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are cases when policy requirements require an epp server implementation to treat an OPTIONAL request element as mandatory. If such OPTIONAL element is not provided the server could return 2308 error code ("Data management policy violation"). Is such a treatment of an OPTIONAL element a violation of epp protocol? Janusz Sienkiewicz From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Oct 9 11:58:30 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25411 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7dBV-0000FN-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:37 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7dBV-0000FK-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:58:37 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99FlD6K012240 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:47:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h99FlDWe012239 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:47:13 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.237.102]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99FlB6K012234 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:47:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com [10.170.12.61]) by heron.verisign.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h99FlASf003164; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:47:09 -0400 Message-ID: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF014A9598@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" , "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] optional elements and server policy Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:47:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: janusz sienkiewicz [mailto:janusz@libertyrms.info] > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:06 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: [ietf-provreg] optional elements and server policy > > > There are cases when policy requirements require an epp server > implementation to treat an OPTIONAL request element as mandatory. If > such OPTIONAL element is not provided the server could return 2308 > error code ("Data management policy violation"). > > Is such a treatment of an OPTIONAL element a violation of > epp protocol? Personally, I don't think so. The 2308 error code exists to make the situation you described obvious. -Scott- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Oct 20 11:49:00 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01391 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABcHM-0001am-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:49:08 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABcHL-0001af-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:49:07 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KFXuvb001307 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:33:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KFXua9001306 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:33:56 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.237.102]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KFXtvb001301 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:33:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com [10.170.12.61]) by heron.verisign.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9KFXsSf003525 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:33:53 -0400 Message-ID: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:33:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I just spent a few minutes writing client and server software in perl to send and receive EPP commands and responses. It's very doable. Does anyone think that they might find it useful to have a documented way to use EPP over UDP for domain availability checking? I'm thinking that registries might find it useful to provide a UDP service for high-volume, no-session-required domain checking. People that want only availability information might find a UDP-based client more useful than whois. -Scott- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Oct 20 12:54:55 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03594 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABdJA-0002GA-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:55:04 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABdJ9-0002G7-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:55:03 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KGdbvb002176 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:39:37 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KGdbga002175 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:39:37 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mailer.key-systems.net (mailer.key-systems.net [217.6.37.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with SMTP id h9KGdZvb002170 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:39:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 8473 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 16:42:51 -0000 Received: from p508afc49.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO key-systems.net) (80.138.252.73) by mailer.key-systems.net with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 16:42:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:38:47 +0200 From: Jens Wagner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" CC: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? References: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> In-Reply-To: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >I just spent a few minutes writing client and server software in perl to >send and receive EPP commands and responses. It's very doable. >Does anyone think that they might find it useful to have a documented way to >use EPP over UDP for domain availability checking? > >I'm thinking that registries might find it useful to provide a UDP service >for high-volume, no-session-required domain checking. People that want only >availability information might find a UDP-based client more useful than >whois. > >-Scott- > > Sure, but this does also simplify DoS attacks against registries that have to perform availability checks using their SQL backend. But it cannot hurt to have such a spec handy, even if for internal purposes only :-) Best regards, -jens From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Oct 20 15:47:48 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22889 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABg0S-0005Xb-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:47:56 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABg0R-0005XU-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:47:55 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KJZ7vb004364 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KJZ7PR004363 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:07 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [192.149.252.32]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KJZ4vb004358 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 5003) id 2B0F4B64; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arin.net (mta [192.136.136.126]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4EEA11 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.136.136.39] (account edlewis HELO tin.arin.net) by arin.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 914487; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:28:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? From: Ed Lewis To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: edlewis@arin.net In-Reply-To: <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> References: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1066678124.12978.34.camel@tin.arin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.43-arin1 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit First, one has to presume that this is external to the PROVREG WG effort. (The charter would forbid it on a number of grounds.) Nevertheless, this ought to be considered - and recall that this list will outlive the WG. (It's not a matter of scope for the list.) Congestion control was one of the issues that we (PROVREG WG) got hit with (in the IESG comments). But with this being UDP, I don't think that congestion is a concern. (UDP is UDP, no retransmission. Unless something else is screwed up in design - no amplification of traffic load.) Who gets to be the client? I would assume there are a lot more who would want this data than just the registrars. How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do? The difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is significant. On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 12:38, Jens Wagner wrote: > Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > >I just spent a few minutes writing client and server software in perl to > >send and receive EPP commands and responses. It's very doable. > >Does anyone think that they might find it useful to have a documented way to > >use EPP over UDP for domain availability checking? > > > >I'm thinking that registries might find it useful to provide a UDP service > >for high-volume, no-session-required domain checking. People that want only > >availability information might find a UDP-based client more useful than > >whois. > > > >-Scott- > > > > > Sure, but this does also simplify DoS attacks against registries that > have to perform availability checks using their SQL backend. But it > cannot hurt to have such a spec handy, even if for internal purposes > only :-) > > Best regards, > -jens From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Oct 20 16:47:00 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04246 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABgvj-0000DQ-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:47:07 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABgvi-0000DN-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:47:07 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KKRdvb004868 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:27:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KKRdrC004867 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:27:39 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from zak.ecotroph.net (zak.ecotroph.net [216.93.164.123]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KKRbvb004862 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:27:38 +0200 (MEST) Received: from ecotroph.net ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN anewton) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:27:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3F94454E.7000408@ecotroph.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:27:58 -0400 From: Andrew Newton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Lewis CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? References: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> <1066678124.12978.34.camel@tin.arin.net> In-Reply-To: <1066678124.12978.34.camel@tin.arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ed Lewis wrote: > > How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do? The > difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is > significant. I have asked for time to present a udp transport for IRIS in the CRISP working group in Minneapolis. One of the uses could be for domain availability. -andy From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Oct 21 07:40:03 2003 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13964 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABurz-0002VY-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:40:11 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ABurz-0002VQ-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:40:11 -0400 Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LBRMdF017517 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:27:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9LBRM6F017516 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:27:22 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.237.102]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LBRLdF017511 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:27:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com [10.170.12.61]) by heron.verisign.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LBRKSf025957; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:27:19 -0400 Message-ID: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FFA5@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'Ed Lewis'" , "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:27:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > First, one has to presume that this is external to the PROVREG WG > effort. (The charter would forbid it on a number of grounds.) > Nevertheless, this ought to be considered - and recall that this list > will outlive the WG. (It's not a matter of scope for the list.) Right -- I just figured that there are people on the list who might have an interest in the topic. > Who gets to be the client? I would assume there are a lot more who > would want this data than just the registrars. > > How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do? The > difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is > significant. This is something that would need to be looked at. Andy and I had a chance to talk live yesterday; I think we both believe that there might be some use cases that avoid an intersection with CRISP. There _might_ be for a registry that wants to deploy both protocols. At a minimum, a light EPP UDP might be a useful feature for a registry that wants to deploy EPP, but not the CRISP protocol. Anyway, it's something to talk about over a beer in Minneapolis. -Scott- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LBRMdF017517 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:27:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9LBRM6F017516 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:27:22 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.237.102]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LBRLdF017511 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:27:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com [10.170.12.61]) by heron.verisign.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9LBRKSf025957; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:27:19 -0400 Message-ID: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FFA5@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'Ed Lewis'" , "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:27:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > First, one has to presume that this is external to the PROVREG WG > effort. (The charter would forbid it on a number of grounds.) > Nevertheless, this ought to be considered - and recall that this list > will outlive the WG. (It's not a matter of scope for the list.) Right -- I just figured that there are people on the list who might have an interest in the topic. > Who gets to be the client? I would assume there are a lot more who > would want this data than just the registrars. > > How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do? The > difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is > significant. This is something that would need to be looked at. Andy and I had a chance to talk live yesterday; I think we both believe that there might be some use cases that avoid an intersection with CRISP. There _might_ be for a registry that wants to deploy both protocols. At a minimum, a light EPP UDP might be a useful feature for a registry that wants to deploy EPP, but not the CRISP protocol. Anyway, it's something to talk about over a beer in Minneapolis. -Scott- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KKRdvb004868 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:27:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KKRdrC004867 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:27:39 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from zak.ecotroph.net (zak.ecotroph.net [216.93.164.123]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KKRbvb004862 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:27:38 +0200 (MEST) Received: from ecotroph.net ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN anewton) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:27:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3F94454E.7000408@ecotroph.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:27:58 -0400 From: Andrew Newton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Lewis CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? References: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> <1066678124.12978.34.camel@tin.arin.net> In-Reply-To: <1066678124.12978.34.camel@tin.arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Ed Lewis wrote: > > How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do? The > difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is > significant. I have asked for time to present a udp transport for IRIS in the CRISP working group in Minneapolis. One of the uses could be for domain availability. -andy Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KJZ7vb004364 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KJZ7PR004363 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:07 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [192.149.252.32]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KJZ4vb004358 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 5003) id 2B0F4B64; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arin.net (mta [192.136.136.126]) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4EEA11 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.136.136.39] (account edlewis HELO tin.arin.net) by arin.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 914487; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:28:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? From: Ed Lewis To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: edlewis@arin.net In-Reply-To: <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> References: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1066678124.12978.34.camel@tin.arin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.43-arin1 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk First, one has to presume that this is external to the PROVREG WG effort. (The charter would forbid it on a number of grounds.) Nevertheless, this ought to be considered - and recall that this list will outlive the WG. (It's not a matter of scope for the list.) Congestion control was one of the issues that we (PROVREG WG) got hit with (in the IESG comments). But with this being UDP, I don't think that congestion is a concern. (UDP is UDP, no retransmission. Unless something else is screwed up in design - no amplification of traffic load.) Who gets to be the client? I would assume there are a lot more who would want this data than just the registrars. How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do? The difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is significant. On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 12:38, Jens Wagner wrote: > Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > >I just spent a few minutes writing client and server software in perl to > >send and receive EPP commands and responses. It's very doable. > >Does anyone think that they might find it useful to have a documented way to > >use EPP over UDP for domain availability checking? > > > >I'm thinking that registries might find it useful to provide a UDP service > >for high-volume, no-session-required domain checking. People that want only > >availability information might find a UDP-based client more useful than > >whois. > > > >-Scott- > > > > > Sure, but this does also simplify DoS attacks against registries that > have to perform availability checks using their SQL backend. But it > cannot hurt to have such a spec handy, even if for internal purposes > only :-) > > Best regards, > -jens Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KGdbvb002176 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:39:37 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KGdbga002175 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:39:37 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mailer.key-systems.net (mailer.key-systems.net [217.6.37.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with SMTP id h9KGdZvb002170 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:39:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 8473 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 16:42:51 -0000 Received: from p508afc49.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO key-systems.net) (80.138.252.73) by mailer.key-systems.net with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 16:42:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3F940F97.4000902@key-systems.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:38:47 +0200 From: Jens Wagner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" CC: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? References: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> In-Reply-To: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >I just spent a few minutes writing client and server software in perl to >send and receive EPP commands and responses. It's very doable. >Does anyone think that they might find it useful to have a documented way to >use EPP over UDP for domain availability checking? > >I'm thinking that registries might find it useful to provide a UDP service >for high-volume, no-session-required domain checking. People that want only >availability information might find a UDP-based client more useful than >whois. > >-Scott- > > Sure, but this does also simplify DoS attacks against registries that have to perform availability checks using their SQL backend. But it cannot hurt to have such a spec handy, even if for internal purposes only :-) Best regards, -jens Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KFXuvb001307 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:33:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h9KFXua9001306 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:33:56 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.237.102]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h9KFXtvb001301 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:33:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com [10.170.12.61]) by heron.verisign.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9KFXsSf003525 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:33:53 -0400 Message-ID: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FF44@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: [ietf-provreg] EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking? Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:33:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I just spent a few minutes writing client and server software in perl to send and receive EPP commands and responses. It's very doable. Does anyone think that they might find it useful to have a documented way to use EPP over UDP for domain availability checking? I'm thinking that registries might find it useful to provide a UDP service for high-volume, no-session-required domain checking. People that want only availability information might find a UDP-based client more useful than whois. -Scott- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99FlD6K012240 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:47:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h99FlDWe012239 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:47:13 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.237.102]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99FlB6K012234 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:47:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com [10.170.12.61]) by heron.verisign.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h99FlASf003164; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw3.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:47:09 -0400 Message-ID: <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF014A9598@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" , "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] optional elements and server policy Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:47:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: janusz sienkiewicz [mailto:janusz@libertyrms.info] > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:06 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: [ietf-provreg] optional elements and server policy > > > There are cases when policy requirements require an epp server > implementation to treat an OPTIONAL request element as mandatory. If > such OPTIONAL element is not provided the server could return 2308 > error code ("Data management policy violation"). > > Is such a treatment of an OPTIONAL element a violation of > epp protocol? Personally, I don't think so. The 2308 error code exists to make the situation you described obvious. -Scott- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99F6N6K011788 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id h99F6Nsm011787 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:23 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([209.167.124.227]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) with ESMTP id h99F6M6K011782 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:06:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dev3.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.2.204] helo=libertyrms.info) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 1A7cMt-00041V-00 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:06:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3F85796C.43255F82@libertyrms.info> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:06:20 -0400 From: janusz sienkiewicz Organization: LibertyRMS Co. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] optional elements and server policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk There are cases when policy requirements require an epp server implementation to treat an OPTIONAL request element as mandatory. If such OPTIONAL element is not provided the server could return 2308 error code ("Data management policy violation"). Is such a treatment of an OPTIONAL element a violation of epp protocol? Janusz Sienkiewicz