From fobispo@isc.org Wed May 11 13:07:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FE8E07C9 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:07:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XbHa+OHjKdcy for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AB5E07BA for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C617C94DB for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 20:07:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:66b9:e8ff:feca:6f8e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:66b9:e8ff:feca:6f8e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40070216C31 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 20:07:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) From: Francisco Obispo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:07:23 -0700 Message-Id: To: provreg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [provreg] Splitting the launch phase block in 2 parts X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:09:05 -0000 Sorry for jumping in late, I tried to re-subscribe shortly after the = list was reactivated but couldn't do it.. I'm looking at the archives, and it seems like you guys have made some = progress, which is of course good. Here are some of my comments on the last email: > Dear all, >=20 > Thank you for this extensive and detailed effort > to make the EPP scheme ready for 'sunrise'. > Trying to extend the EPP scheme to provide means to > incorporate validating services is a complicated matter. >=20 My view from the beginning has been to keep the registry business away = from the IP business as much as _possible_, we do not want to model a IP = database into our Registry repository. However if the IP repository = manager wants to use EPP to manage their objects it's good for the = protocol itself, and they're welcome to do so. > We will have to distinguish two different phases > 1. Sending in info to show a certain right > 2. Applying for an extension linked to the right >=20 > Actually these phases can be interchanged and often > a code is used to link the 2 different phases. >=20 > As examples : > .eu provided a code to a sunrise application that > could be used to send in documentary evidence > .co allowed to specify a code to register a name > in sunrise that was verified against a clearing house >=20 I'm more sympathetic with the approach used by .co (as described here), = being able to receive an approval code from the registrar that can be = later verified with the IP clearing entity makes it more efficient from = a process perspective, it'll be just one more check we have to do. Francisco Obispo=20 Applications Manager email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC Key fingerprint =3D 532F 84EB 06B4 3806 D5FA 09C6 463E 614E B38D B1BE From provreg@contact.dotandco.com Tue May 17 15:09:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916EFE07A4 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 15:09:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tc9zIhnmbITU for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 15:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.dotandco.com (mail.dotandco.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f13:4c2:74aa:293f:3e3d:c181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2A1E06DF for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 15:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p4HM9nJA022474 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 00:09:49 +0200 Received: (from patrick@localhost) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p4HM9nKw022472 for provreg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 00:09:49 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 00:09:49 +0200 From: Patrick Mevzek To: provreg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110517220949.GB12542@home.patoche.org> References: <1302088920.11239.56.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 18 May 2011 00:09:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 22:09:54 -0000 Wil Tan 2011-04-12 18:24 > The draft is now posted to the IETF repository: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-00.txt In case you have not seen it already, there is a similar extension at http://cocca.org.nz/index.php/cocca-tools/extensions.html It may be another example of what is already done on the field. HTH. -- Patrick Mevzek From wil@cloudregistry.net Sat May 21 04:12:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0C3E068F for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L4A5URzJNRAJ for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB444E0655 for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so3348943qwc.31 for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.200.105 with SMTP id ev41mr423060qcb.0.1305976352886; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.229.211 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:12:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110517220949.GB12542@home.patoche.org> References: <1302088920.11239.56.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> <20110517220949.GB12542@home.patoche.org> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 21:12:32 +1000 Message-ID: From: Wil Tan To: Patrick Mevzek Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636ef04379950f504a3c75079 Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 11:12:36 -0000 --001636ef04379950f504a3c75079 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Patrick, On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Patrick Mevzek < provreg@contact.dotandco.com> wrote: > Wil Tan 2011-04-12 18:24 > > The draft is now posted to the IETF repository: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-00.txt > > In case you have not seen it already, there is a similar extension at > http://cocca.org.nz/index.php/cocca-tools/extensions.html > > It may be another example of what is already done on the field. > > Thanks for the pointer. It's not clear how one would manage multiple applications for the same domain name with this extension. Do you know if that's a supported use case? It does have an interesting feature which we hadn't envisioned though, which is the ability to submit multiple trademark claims in the same create command. In our limited experience, and as far as I can tell in the generic TLD sunrise phases, there hasn't been a need for that. Do folks think that it is a useful thing to have? .wil --001636ef04379950f504a3c75079 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Patrick,

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:09 = AM, Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com> wrote:
Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net<= /a>> 2011-04-12 18:24
> The draft is now posted to the IETF repository:
>
> =C2=A0 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dra= ft-tan-epp-launchphase-00.txt

In case you have not seen it already, there is a similar extension at=
http://cocca.org.nz/index.php/cocca-tools/extensions.html<= br>
It may be another example of what is already done on the field.


Thanks for the pointer.

=
It's not clear how one would manage multiple applications fo= r the same domain name with this extension. Do you know if that's a sup= ported use case?
It does have an interesting feature which we hadn't envisioned tho= ugh, which is the ability to submit multiple trademark claims in the same c= reate command. In our limited experience, and as far as I can tell in the g= eneric TLD sunrise phases, there hasn't been a need for that. Do folks = think that it is a useful thing to have?

.wil
--001636ef04379950f504a3c75079-- From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Sun May 22 10:13:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AD8E06E2 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 10:13:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.691 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jeu+sP2DAnJ7 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 10:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C13E0670 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 10:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Gavins-MacBook-Pro.local (027f7579.bb.sky.com [2.127.117.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B94712B88; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:13:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DD94451.3020507@centralnic.com> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:13:53 +0100 From: Gavin Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wil Tan References: <1302088920.11239.56.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> <20110517220949.GB12542@home.patoche.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:13:58 -0000 On 21/05/2011 12:12, Wil Tan wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Patrick Mevzek > > wrote: > > Wil Tan > > 2011-04-12 18:24 > > The draft is now posted to the IETF repository: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-00.txt > > In case you have not seen it already, there is a similar extension at > http://cocca.org.nz/index.php/cocca-tools/extensions.html > > It may be another example of what is already done on the field. > > > Thanks for the pointer. > > It's not clear how one would manage multiple applications for the same > domain name with this extension. Do you know if that's a supported use case? > It does have an interesting feature which we hadn't envisioned though, > which is the ability to submit multiple trademark claims in the same > create command. In our limited experience, and as far as I can tell in > the generic TLD sunrise phases, there hasn't been a need for that. Do > folks think that it is a useful thing to have? The traditional approach in computer science is to allow 0, 1 or ∞ instances of something :-) G. -- CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Sun May 22 12:10:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9BDE06F2 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 12:10:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XoNgk0I3qJTN for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7868DE064E for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.91.2] (027f7579.bb.sky.com [2.127.117.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FCE712BB7; Sun, 22 May 2011 18:38:56 +0000 (UTC) References: <1302088920.11239.56.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> <20110517220949.GB12542@home.patoche.org> <4DD94451.3020507@centralnic.com> In-Reply-To: <4DD94451.3020507@centralnic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8H7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8H7) From: Gavin Brown Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:39:24 +0100 To: Gavin Brown Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:10:37 -0000 With my serious hat on, I don't see what benefit there would be in allowing m= ultiple claims for an application. If an applicant has multiple claims over a= domain name, then surely they should just use the "strongest" one? G. --=20 Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Global Registry Services Innovative Registry Services for ccTLD and gTLD registries https://www.centralnic.com/grs CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. On 22 May 2011, at 18:13, Gavin Brown wrote: > On 21/05/2011 12:12, Wil Tan wrote: >> Hi Patrick, >>=20 >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Patrick Mevzek >> > wrot= e: >>=20 >> Wil Tan > >> 2011-04-12 18:24 >> > The draft is now posted to the IETF repository: >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-00.tx= t >>=20 >> In case you have not seen it already, there is a similar extension at >> http://cocca.org.nz/index.php/cocca-tools/extensions.html >>=20 >> It may be another example of what is already done on the field. >>=20 >>=20 >> Thanks for the pointer. >>=20 >> It's not clear how one would manage multiple applications for the same >> domain name with this extension. Do you know if that's a supported use ca= se? >> It does have an interesting feature which we hadn't envisioned though, >> which is the ability to submit multiple trademark claims in the same >> create command. In our limited experience, and as far as I can tell in >> the generic TLD sunrise phases, there hasn't been a need for that. Do >> folks think that it is a useful thing to have? >=20 > The traditional approach in computer science is to allow 0, 1 or =E2=88=9E= instances of something :-) >=20 > G. >=20 > --=20 > CentralNic Ltd > Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services > for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries > https://www.centralnic.com/ >=20 > CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company > number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From jothan@gmail.com Sun May 22 17:24:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F24FE06B9 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:24:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q0mPVxqW2H33 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901BCE06AD for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so4495955vws.31 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BzwcwCC2UxwlzjRbrFYOiMUQU3/6xGtBhzuIpsMQucc=; b=LTdqXm1PeakBfAD1U9AgEX+DYD+9zWCeS7qfrjvtdrQl4hbbHz/QFAhHuSuLgHzLmX Up0WKYTOZexaE3tXTm9YbIQsILUNROkt42BYbtGy7PZv0LJsdngYAfnduCMVc3hdATtp tR2yotK6b7fTesZrbgkJvd5oF558uLO0gVFJU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ks81EVqWiufarxrSgy3S16kemvTtasf/S45AS7bKjosA9RZWlJu2jq0g9rdRJt29QO SUQGOFY1IvwdBETictnxErk/QOo2GkAKxrSynXwLPTri0El1IAdIWPaOwQof/dca+Jsm LayTT81NaFIqBLtCxeYGzzTnkvVpAsBJU+o3Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.38.135 with SMTP id g7mr2601098vdk.189.1306109802955; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.185.200 with HTTP; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.185.200 with HTTP; Sun, 22 May 2011 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1302088920.11239.56.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> <20110517220949.GB12542@home.patoche.org> <4DD94451.3020507@centralnic.com> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:16:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jothan Frakes To: Gavin Brown Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51d293ed7c22c04a3e66293 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 00:24:43 -0000 --bcaec51d293ed7c22c04a3e66293 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Actually, documentary support in the form of multiple trademarks on a given string would prove deeply helpful to some of the providers, as the weight (ie # of trademarks) may be a tiebreaker in the presence of dueling applicants on a string. We might see some providers operate in that manner. May as well leave it if it hurts nothing. Sent from my jphone On May 22, 2011 12:10 PM, "Gavin Brown" wrote: With my serious hat on, I don't see what benefit there would be in allowing multiple claims for an application. If an applicant has multiple claims over a domain name, then surely they should just use the "strongest" one? G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Global Registry Services Innovative Registry Services for ccTLD and gTLD registries https://www.centralnic.com/grs CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered... On 22 May 2011, at 18:13, Gavin Brown wrote: > On 21/05/2011 12:12, Wi... --bcaec51d293ed7c22c04a3e66293 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, documentary support in the form of multiple trademarks on a gi= ven string would prove deeply helpful to some of the providers, as the weig= ht (ie # of trademarks) may be a tiebreaker in the presence of dueling appl= icants on a string.

We might see some providers operate in that manner.=A0 May as well leave= it if it hurts nothing.

Sent from my jphone

On May 22, 2011 12:10 PM, "Gavin Brown&qu= ot; <gavin.brown@centralni= c.com> wrote:

With my serious hat on, I don't see what be= nefit there would be in allowing multiple claims for an application. If an = applicant has multiple claims over a domain name, then surely they should j= ust use the "strongest" one?


G.

--
Gavin Brown
Chief Techno= logy Officer

CentralNic Global Registry Services
Innovative Registry Services for ccTLD and gTLD registries
https://www.ce= ntralnic.com/grs


CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in En= gland and Wales with company
number 4985780. Registered...

= On 22 May 2011, at 18:13, Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com> w= rote:

> On 21/05/2011 12:12, Wi...

--bcaec51d293ed7c22c04a3e66293-- From jothan@gmail.com Fri May 27 10:57:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DEDE0701 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmqNk+Koc3h0 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D747CE066A for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so1905281vws.31 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:57:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=Vq9mXvBOI41qlv8ldmjTPn9q48P+nym1SLCxbEPg4rI=; b=XG8gppL6kpB6ZIB8MkKM84CIlg1z4I9eAUXRubbzxBA+m6VMiGXXnM4jlui8XnWGgy J0jZWJDaKsXQyEuEyAHqhBMG5E6HG2Extd/8gvfRtGs3nl0MWYbzrPp7aRzAiO5T4/9n aiAbTWqyclO4C5JlkiLOW6XOkZtuBQoPp8z9A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=Rd+jcM2lH2qzXvhQAenabAtJ7xx4ABvq/XQn7PuH1O+xnLnV+dI4xT9x1KxtYWgUwA uvE8CHGVsOWXe2+rtE7BK2+hlLnanBkibWzit30PmPl4yLR9s4CY5XyD/oa3Cp0CSeeC 811BSVt7kiA/A3Ia0ZJBRcYujKtIVU+hCrDoU= Received: by 10.52.175.197 with SMTP id cc5mr3353005vdc.287.1306519030066; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:57:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.185.104 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:56:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jothan Frakes Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:56:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: provreg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: William Tan Subject: [provreg] Perhaps out of scope, but valuable: IDN Codepoint X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:57:37 -0000 Hi- I am spending a bit of time with the Universal Acceptance aspect of the new TLD launches, as well as spending a fair amount of time in my volunteer role with the Mozilla Foundation on the IDN White-list and the curation efforts for the Public Suffix List ( PublicSuffix.org is the URL ). I am noticing something that might be a worthwhile standardization in and around having some means to identify to the registrars what are and are not legal characters to receive registrations on for a given TLD. I wonder if a call that could pull down the Unicode code points and/or any registry specific normalization, case folding, or homonym replacement mapping might be important to have. Each registry seems to have strong opinions about how their solution is the best, there are numerous cultural-linguistic elements and sensitivities that a registry might make for having their own specific mappings, or other things that make the character set code points distinct to a TLD. Mileage varies in current IDN implementations, though there are some standardizations (ie the JET Guidelines). The status quo in registry launches is that there is a sunrise[1..x]->landrush->general availability cycle that happens in the legal roman characters, followed by later launches for IDN. What I want to make sure of is that registries that wish to start day 1 with IDN inclusive have the ability to do so in a clean and sane manner that is unified so that registrars can assimilate them. Is this obtuse to our focus? -Jothan Jothan Frakes +1.206-355-0230 tel +1.206-201-6881 fax From gavin.brown@centralnic.com Tue May 31 03:53:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B650FE070A for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 03:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+gTNeenjwAD for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 03:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C65E0709 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 03:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.63.74.90] (staffgw.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net [82.68.174.118]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8CE712B82; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:53:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Gavin Brown To: Jothan Frakes , provreg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: CentralNic Ltd Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:53:36 +0100 Message-ID: <1306839216.2496.26.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 (2.28.3-1.fc12) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: William Tan Subject: Re: [provreg] Perhaps out of scope, but valuable: IDN Codepoint X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:53:39 -0000 > [snip] > Is this obtuse to our focus? I don't think it has any relevance to the LaunchPhase extension. EPP currently has no way to signal any metadata relating to IDNs. There was a draft for an extension but it expired some time ago. EPP is strictly a provisioning protocol, and therefore signalling of policy (such as what code points are permitted) is out of scope. The current best practice is for registries to submit their IDN tables to IANA for publication. These can then be used by registrars to pre-validate domains before attempting to register them. Having said that, an EPP extension that extended the semantics of might be useful - something like this: xn--eqrt2g.xn--fiqs8s zh We implemented a function in our HTTP Toolkit [1] to do something very similar. G. 1: https://www.centralnic.com/registrars/toolkit/doc/validate_domain -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. From fobispo@isc.org Tue May 31 07:23:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8228DE06FD for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2aSCTYjGU+hI for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 07:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C635CE06DC for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 07:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1EC7C94CD; Tue, 31 May 2011 14:23:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (c-24-23-217-48.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.23.217.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0918216C7B; Tue, 31 May 2011 14:23:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <1306839216.2496.26.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 07:23:01 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1306839216.2496.26.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> To: Gavin Brown X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: William Tan , provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Perhaps out of scope, but valuable: IDN Codepoint X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:23:24 -0000 And not even that, Since you're using XML to exchange the request, if you specify the = appropriate character encoding and pass the document with entities such = as: español.com On the registry side, you should be able to decode it properly and = generate a UTF-8 string with: espa=F1ol.com Which can be validated in the registry. IDNs should be obscured to the client as much as possible. There's no = need for them to know at this level that this domain name translates = into xn--espaol-zwa.com since that's something that the registry must = handle internally.=20 Francisco On May 31, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Gavin Brown wrote: >> [snip] >> Is this obtuse to our focus? >=20 > I don't think it has any relevance to the LaunchPhase extension. >=20 > EPP currently has no way to signal any metadata relating to IDNs. = There > was a draft for an extension but it expired some time ago. >=20 > EPP is strictly a provisioning protocol, and therefore signalling of > policy (such as what code points are permitted) is out of scope. The > current best practice is for registries to submit their IDN tables to > IANA for publication. These can then be used by registrars to > pre-validate domains before attempting to register them. >=20 > Having said that, an EPP extension that extended the semantics of > might be useful - something like this: >=20 > > > > > = > xn--eqrt2g.xn--fiqs8s > > > > > > zh > > > >=20 > We implemented a function in our HTTP Toolkit [1] to do something very > similar. >=20 > G. >=20 > 1: https://www.centralnic.com/registrars/toolkit/doc/validate_domain >=20 > --=20 > Gavin Brown > Chief Technology Officer > CentralNic Ltd > Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services > for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries > https://www.centralnic.com/ >=20 > CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with = company > number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg Francisco Obispo=20 Hosted@ Programme Manager email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC Key fingerprint =3D 532F 84EB 06B4 3806 D5FA 09C6 463E 614E B38D B1BE From fobispo@isc.org Tue May 31 08:20:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE92E0721 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afmUqgL9QnGS for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804BFE0701 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2461C9428 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:20:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (c-24-23-217-48.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.23.217.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB7AB216C7C for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:20:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) From: Francisco Obispo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:20:36 -0700 Message-Id: To: provreg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:20:45 -0000 In RFC 5732 (Host Mapping for EPP), on the statuses section, there is: - linked The host object has at least one active association with another object, such as a domain object. Servers SHOULD provide services to determine existing object associations. There's no mention on how the server should provide theses services. In = addition, I've seen several registries implement queries such as this = using very different methods (extensions, SOAP, REST, etc.) I'm also thinking on a use case, where a registrar my want to get the = list of objects it sponsors.. there's no way in EPP to do this now. Do yo guys think this is worth standardizing? I think this is the right = kind of use for an extension. Francisco Obispo=20 ISC From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue May 31 08:30:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF59AE0677 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40QBEbaGBB4e for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08B8E06D5 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B28351ECB41C for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:30:20 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: provreg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110531153020.GF25706@shinkuro.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:30:25 -0000 On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 08:20:36AM -0700, Francisco Obispo wrote: > I'm also thinking on a use case, where a registrar my want to get the list of objects it sponsors.. there's no way in EPP to do this now. > EPP seems pretty poorly designed for that kind of bulk-data reporting. Note that IRIS was deisgned precisely to support that kind of query, but nobody seems to use it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@crankycanuck.ca From shollenbeck@verisign.com Tue May 31 08:39:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135DCE0746 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAP7yVgYsFLY for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og101.obsmtp.com (exprod6og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB54FE06D5 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob101.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTeULpptCSKJgxe5ifnXi060gtQNMApnY@postini.com; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:39:21 PDT Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p4VFdIja008133; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:39:18 -0400 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 31 May 2011 11:39:18 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:39:17 -0400 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0703B8AF43@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <20110531153020.GF25706@shinkuro.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... Thread-Index: Acwfp8yVO2++/WuCTAmlxRJPD4+edwAAPHPg References: <20110531153020.GF25706@shinkuro.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Andrew Sullivan" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2011 15:39:18.0020 (UTC) FILETIME=[E72AA440:01CC1FA8] Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:39:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:30 AM > To: provreg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... >=20 > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 08:20:36AM -0700, Francisco Obispo wrote: > > I'm also thinking on a use case, where a registrar my want to get the > list of objects it sponsors.. there's no way in EPP to do this now. > > >=20 > EPP seems pretty poorly designed for that kind of bulk-data reporting. > Note that IRIS was deisgned precisely to support that kind of query, > but nobody seems to use it. We made a conscious decision to NOT include bulk query operations. Scott From Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tue May 31 08:48:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD77E0751 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:48:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lTn9ccHIQw4 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3c-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05E8E0677 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3F647; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:48:52 +0200 (MESZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id cLSnsFEymx8N; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:48:47 +0200 (MESZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5517355; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:48:44 +0200 (MESZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p4VFmij6020863; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:48:44 +0200 (MESZ) Message-ID: <4DE50DDE.4000405@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:48:46 +0200 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110529 Thunderbird/3.3a4pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Obispo References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:48:56 -0000 On 31/05/11 17:20, Francisco Obispo wrote: > In RFC 5732 (Host Mapping for EPP), on the statuses section, there is: > > - linked > > The host object has at least one active association with another object, such > as a domain object. Servers SHOULD provide services to determine existing > object associations. > > > There's no mention on how the server should provide theses services. In > addition, I've seen several registries implement queries such as this using > very different methods (extensions, SOAP, REST, etc.) > > I'm also thinking on a use case, where a registrar my want to get the list of > objects it sponsors.. there's no way in EPP to do this now. > > Do yo guys think this is worth standardizing? I think this is the right kind > of use for an extension. > > > Francisco Obispo ISC > Hi, sadly, if I remember correctly, once there was a discussion about such a feature while EPP was standardized, but it was turned down. Trying to establish such a feature in a standardized way is now an uphill fight -- registrars simply don't like to change their systems if they already have a proven way to do the job, even if it is a proprietary solution. Also, what can you (as a registrar) do if you know what objects are linked to your object instead of the knowledge that these exist (via the "linked" status)? If you don't have any means EPP-wise to free your trapped objects, it is not that helpful, except that you can manually find out the e-mail addresses of the related registrars and beg them to disuse your objects. Regards, Klaus From fobispo@isc.org Tue May 31 08:55:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825AAE0877 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:55:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q7G+LVslwhZE for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B270E081B for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0B07C94BE; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:55:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (c-24-23-217-48.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.23.217.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4132216C7B; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:55:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0703B8AF43@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:55:06 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20110531153020.GF25706@shinkuro.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0703B8AF43@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:55:26 -0000 Hi Scott, Can you please share why this was the case? Was an extension mechanism ever considered for such operations? On May 31, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > We made a conscious decision to NOT include bulk query operations. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg Francisco Obispo ISC From fobispo@isc.org Tue May 31 08:59:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5144E088B for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kRoZePXMpqGc for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAB8E06BB for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5144BC94A2; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:59:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (c-24-23-217-48.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.23.217.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3967C216C7A; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:59:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <4DE50DDE.4000405@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:59:21 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4DE50DDE.4000405@knipp.de> To: Klaus Malorny X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:59:29 -0000 On May 31, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Klaus Malorny wrote: > Hi, >=20 > sadly, if I remember correctly, once there was a discussion about such = a feature while EPP was standardized, but it was turned down. Trying to = establish such a feature in a standardized way is now an uphill fight -- = registrars simply don't like to change their systems if they already = have a proven way to do the job, even if it is a proprietary solution. >=20 Well considering that they might be 500 new TLDs, with an unknown number = of new registries out there, perhaps they should be considering it. > Also, what can you (as a registrar) do if you know what objects are = linked to your object instead of the knowledge that these exist (via the = "linked" status)? If you don't have any means EPP-wise to free your = trapped objects, it is not that helpful, except that you can manually = find out the e-mail addresses of the related registrars and beg them to = disuse your objects. >=20 Well I guess the regular EPP transform commands would do the job, it = would be a matter of registry policy.=20 > Regards, >=20 > Klaus Francisco Obispo=20 ISC From Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tue May 31 09:06:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939A4E07EC for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LdzrCA2KGDd7 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3c-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630D3E07DC for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EF051; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:06:16 +0200 (MESZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id A5j6s2V++u5x; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:06:11 +0200 (MESZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4AA50; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:06:10 +0200 (MESZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p4VG6Awg024076; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:06:10 +0200 (MESZ) Message-ID: <4DE511F4.8040201@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:06:12 +0200 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110529 Thunderbird/3.3a4pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Obispo References: <20110531153020.GF25706@shinkuro.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0703B8AF43@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:06:18 -0000 On 31/05/11 17:55, Francisco Obispo wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Can you please share why this was the case? > > Was an extension mechanism ever considered for such operations? > A response of such a request could contain millions of objects in the worst case, and with ICANN's SLAs in mind, this is not a good idea ;-) Of course, there are ways to deal with this. Regards, Klaus From Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tue May 31 09:28:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82DAE0747 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:28:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwAd+ZWrxWbz for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3c-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A7AE0746 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E8B48; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:28:37 +0200 (MESZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id kmTmrw3yD-JJ; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:28:32 +0200 (MESZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22A549; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:28:31 +0200 (MESZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p4VGSVAU027439; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:28:31 +0200 (MESZ) Message-ID: <4DE51731.2020304@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:28:33 +0200 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110529 Thunderbird/3.3a4pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Obispo References: <4DE50DDE.4000405@knipp.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:28:39 -0000 On 31/05/11 17:59, Francisco Obispo wrote: > > On May 31, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Klaus Malorny wrote: > > Well considering that they might be 500 new TLDs, with an unknown number of > new registries out there, perhaps they should be considering it. valid point, agreed. > > > Well I guess the regular EPP transform commands would do the job, it would be > a matter of registry policy. > If a domain sponsored by another registrar references one of your in-zone hosts, which then blocks the deletion of the containing domain, what can you do? Issuing update commands for these domains? Likely not. The hard way would be to allow the deletion of the host despite being referenced by non-sponsored objects, with the side effect that the host is removed from all domains referring to it. But I guess this breaks the EPP standard somewhere, and would also be too risky to be executed without explicit consent (via special option or so). Regards, Klaus From fobispo@isc.org Tue May 31 09:44:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FA7E07F7 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:44:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mbrpMdjjdrIE for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDE0E07F8 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF2155F98B1; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:44:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (c-24-23-217-48.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.23.217.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2299C216C7B; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:44:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <4DE51731.2020304@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:44:03 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <128E4B0A-6F77-4D47-82C0-50195B05B871@isc.org> References: <4DE50DDE.4000405@knipp.de> <4DE51731.2020304@knipp.de> To: Klaus Malorny X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:44:30 -0000 Well the same thing will happen, if a domain was to expire, and it had = very popular Hosts associated with it. Don't get me wrong.. I agree with you, but this is grey area that = requires attention.=20 On May 31, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Klaus Malorny wrote: > If a domain sponsored by another registrar references one of your = in-zone hosts, which then blocks the deletion of the containing domain, = what can you do? Issuing update commands for these domains? Likely not. >=20 > The hard way would be to allow the deletion of the host despite being = referenced by non-sponsored objects, with the side effect that the host = is removed from all domains referring to it. But I guess this breaks the = EPP standard somewhere, and would also be too risky to be executed = without explicit consent (via special option or so). >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Klaus Francisco Obispo=20 ISC From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Tue May 31 09:45:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9DDE0789 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:45:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Jb8VQGeQrXF for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6B1E07F0 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 861921ECB41C for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:45:02 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: provreg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110531164501.GH25706@shinkuro.com> References: <4DE50DDE.4000405@knipp.de> <4DE51731.2020304@knipp.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DE51731.2020304@knipp.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [provreg] Ways of querying for linked objects... X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:45:05 -0000 On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 06:28:33PM +0200, Klaus Malorny wrote: > If a domain sponsored by another registrar references one of your > in-zone hosts, which then blocks the deletion of the containing > domain, what can you do? Issuing update commands for these domains? > Likely not. At least one registry implementation I know of would automatically change the name of such a host to be a lame delegation when such a deletion of the superordinate domain was requested. This was possible partly because of pendingDelete. (I should note, too, that I personally think this is a really bad idea from a DNS point of view, but I understand why the business reasons override that.) > The hard way would be to allow the deletion of the host despite > being referenced by non-sponsored objects, with the side effect that > the host is removed from all domains referring to it. But I guess > this breaks the EPP standard somewhere, and would also be too risky > to be executed without explicit consent (via special option or so). If you refer to a host inside a domain outside your control -- regardless of whether it is internal to the repository or external -- you're going to have a bad day when the superordinate domain is deleted. The sponsor of that domain is allowed to rename any hosts inside it anyway, and your NS records in your zone are going to be wrong at that point. This is in effect either a reason never to do that, or else a reason to believe that strong external contractual rules are what will actually be effective here. If you believe the latter, of course, then you believe there is another channel besides EPP for communication between the sponsor and the operator of the repository. In that case, bulk operations and information about links to objects you sponsor can both be delivered outside EPP. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From provreg@contact.dotandco.com Tue May 31 11:08:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EF6E0715 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81VBSbNqdSJc for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.dotandco.com (mail.dotandco.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f13:4c2:74aa:293f:3e3d:c181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B005E06DA for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p4VI8ECB012629 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:08:14 +0200 Received: (from patrick@localhost) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p4VI8DDT012627 for provreg@ietf.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:08:13 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 20:08:12 +0200 From: Patrick Mevzek To: provreg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110531180812.GC3388@home.patoche.org> References: <1306839216.2496.26.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1306839216.2496.26.camel@scimitar.gb.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 31 May 2011 20:08:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [provreg] Perhaps out of scope, but valuable: IDN Codepoint X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:08:18 -0000 Gavin Brown 2011-05-31 12:54 > > [snip] > > Is this obtuse to our focus? > > I don't think it has any relevance to the LaunchPhase extension. Agreed, not related strictly to launchphase, but since we are on the provreg mailing-list the question is indeed a valid one for EPP. [..] > Having said that, an EPP extension that extended the semantics of > might be useful - something like this: > > > > > > > xn--eqrt2g.xn--fiqs8s > > > > > > zh > > > > > We implemented a function in our HTTP Toolkit [1] to do something very > similar. There are *a lot* of registry extensions (each doing it its own way) covering this case. I count at least 4 of them in my client EPP implementation. In my previous draft on EPP experiences, consolidating the way IDNs are handled was a specific point worth working on in my view, since one could imagine a not too distant future where most (or even all) of the TLDs will do IDNs. -- Patrick Mevzek