From shollenbeck@verisign.com Wed Dec 14 10:46:10 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 B30F021F8B01 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:10 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8n-7alB+lQZD for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og110.obsmtp.com (exprod6og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B760421F8AFF for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob110.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTuju0vHy18CDQ048Gw28z4rgJw2i4Q47@postini.com; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:45:55 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id pBEIjZBU022324 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:45:38 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.139]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:45:29 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.205]) by dul1wnexcn04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:45:08 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:44:38 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt Thread-Index: Acy6kMDmeVjf8PBbQyqVKRoz3guHbQ== Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:45:07 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2011 18:45:08.0166 (UTC) FILETIME=[808CA660:01CCBA90] Subject: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt 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, 14 Dec 2011 18:46:10 -0000 I am not a Chinese domain name expert, so please excuse any ignorance I exp= ose with these comments. Section 5.1.1: I'd recommend including an example response. Section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3: All of the extension elements are described as opt= ional in the text and the schema, which implies that they can all be omitte= d. That doesn't seem right - shouldn't at least one of the elements be incl= uded? These sections don't describe any differences in the response depending on = the domain submitted in the command. What happens if the query is for an OC= DN? For an SCDN? For a TCDN? For a VCDN? Does it matter? The example r= esponses contain a lot of information, but without knowing what was queried= I don't know how to interpret the examples. Section 5.2.1: Why are the and elements OPTIONAL?= If they're not present, there's no reason to extend the command a= t all, right? Shouldn't one of them be present? Section 5.2.2: I really think this section needs more text to explain what = happens when a request is made to delete an OCDN, SCDN, TCDN, and VCDNs. Is= the list of domains returned in the response a list of domains that are be= ing deleted as a result of deleting an OCDN? If so, that should be clearly = explained. Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4: Similar comment with OPTIONAL elements and process= ing of the different forms. In a private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the possibility of = this draft (and others like it) being revised to describe a more general ap= proach to IDN variants. I would support that effort. Scott From shollenbeck@verisign.com Wed Dec 14 10:46:31 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 9D46A21F8B0B for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:31 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0zIgmD6gZCdD for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og107.obsmtp.com (exprod6og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D718521F8B0A for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob107.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTujvBurZRDlhn3idUF17hdoUJ+3f8xTp@postini.com; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:30 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id pBEIkTfu009381 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:46:30 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.205]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:45:43 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:45:31 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping-00.txt Thread-Index: Acy6kOCJJB5r4uU4SOa3/0DS/N2x1Q== Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:45:59 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4F1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2011 18:45:43.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[95B62160:01CCBA90] Subject: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping-00.txt 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, 14 Dec 2011 18:46:31 -0000 Section 4: it would be really helpful to include examples of the additional= element(s) described in sections 4 and 4.1. Section 5.2: Please change 'A "type" attribute is used to identify a bundle= of CDNs' to 'A REQUIRED "type" attribute is used to identify a bundle of C= DNs' Sorry, I haven't had time to explore the meaty parts of the document. Scott From james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au Wed Dec 14 18:55:57 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 5A3831F0C69 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:55:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TyRi2j-laOTx for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx01.ausregistry.net.au (mx01.ausregistry.net.au [202.65.15.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9F21F0C47 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:55:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-win2003-01.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au (HELO off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.1.3]) by iron01.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2011 13:55:49 +1100 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:55:42 +1100 From: James Mitchell To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "provreg@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:55:53 +1100 Thread-Topic: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt Thread-Index: Acy61QhV2ADoGnuQSzmKnTZnVlMt0g== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:55:57 -0000 > >In a private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the possibility >of this draft (and others like it) being revised to describe a more >general approach to IDN variants. I would support that effort. > I also support a more general approach to IDN variants. From wil@cloudregistry.net Wed Dec 14 22:03:05 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 A158221F8483 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:03:05 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HAV0Drfzpp7X for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B4821F8482 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by iaek3 with SMTP id k3so2793829iae.31 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:03:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.136.196 with SMTP id v4mr1513918ict.3.1323928983190; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:03:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.170.42 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:03:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:03:03 +1100 Message-ID: From: Wil Tan To: James Mitchell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba613c7cc03b2b04b41b3c35 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:03:05 -0000 --90e6ba613c7cc03b2b04b41b3c35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Mitchell < james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au> wrote: > > > > >In a private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the possibility > >of this draft (and others like it) being revised to describe a more > >general approach to IDN variants. I would support that effort. > > > > I also support a more general approach to IDN variants. > > +1 I've also expressed the same interest to Ning in a private exchange, and will gladly contribute to the efforts. .wil --90e6ba613c7cc03b2b04b41b3c35 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Mitchell <james.mitchell@ausregistry.= com.au> wrote:

>
>In a private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the possibility=
>of this draft (and others like it) being revised to describe a more
>general approach to IDN variants. =C2=A0I would support that effort. >

I also support a more general approach to IDN variants.

<= br>

I've also expressed the same interest to Nin= g in a private exchange, and will gladly contribute to the efforts.

.wil

--90e6ba613c7cc03b2b04b41b3c35-- From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Dec 15 08:02:32 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 A798F21F85C7 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:02:32 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KnbKYEsTF+B for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C0A521F853A for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:02:31 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:02:24 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Hollenbeck, Scott'" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:02:15 +0800 Message-ID: <00bb01ccbb42$ec54ae30$c4fe0a90$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQD9XVhgGv7ZIk1hOccDWvpO2tecWZd7XbcQ Content-Language: zh-cn Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:02:32 -0000 Hi Scott, Thanks for your comments! > Section 5.1.1: I'd recommend including an example response. OK. I'd like to add an example in the next version or maybe in the new draft for IDN in future. > Section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3: All of the extension elements are described as > optional in the text and the schema, which implies that they can all be > omitted. That doesn't seem right - shouldn't at least one of the elements be > included? Yep, you're right. That's our mistake. > These sections don't describe any differences in the response depending on > the domain submitted in the command. What happens if the query is for an > OCDN? For an SCDN? For a TCDN? For a VCDN? Does it matter? The > example responses contain a lot of information, but without knowing what > was queried I don't know how to interpret the examples. In this draft, we take OCDN, SCDN, TCDN and all VCDNs as one bundle. And each CDN from the same bundle might have the same attributes (based on our policy). That's to say, whether or not the query if for an OCDN, SCDN, TCDN, or VCDN, the response should be same except the tag. > Section 5.2.1: Why are the and elements > OPTIONAL? If they're not present, there's no reason to extend the > command at all, right? Shouldn't one of them be present? You're right. We made a similar mistake like Section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Thanks for your corrections. > Section 5.2.2: I really think this section needs more text to explain what > happens when a request is made to delete an OCDN, SCDN, TCDN, and VCDNs. > Is the list of domains returned in the response a list of domains that are being > deleted as a result of deleting an OCDN? If so, that should be clearly > explained. We indeed should make more explanations in this draft. In this draft, we take OCDN, SCDN, TCDN and all VCDNs as one bundle, as I said above, we extend the Command to delete all CDNs of the same bundle. If a client only wants to delete one or some VCDNs, we suggest the client uses Command ( element) which is also extended by us. > Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4: Similar comment with OPTIONAL elements and > processing of the different forms. Our similar mistakes. > In a private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the possibility of this > draft (and others like it) being revised to describe a more general approach to > IDN variants. I would support that effort. I realize that this draft which only focuses on CDNs is limited, and a more general approach for IDNs would be more helpful. I'd like to do this work later. Thanks a lot for your support! Cheers, Ning From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Dec 15 08:05:41 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 6A00921F85A7 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:05:41 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwSoSyIvGcq9 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 019D721F8513 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:05:39 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:05:38 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Hollenbeck, Scott'" , References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4F1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4F1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:05:32 +0800 Message-ID: <00bc01ccbb43$606e0e10$214a2a30$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLLTH+I6W39ktaPuY4OCKrlWaOlQpPf7Pjg Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping-00.txt 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:05:41 -0000 > Section 4: it would be really helpful to include examples of the additional > element(s) described in sections 4 and 4.1. I'd like to add such examples later. > Section 5.2: Please change 'A "type" attribute is used to identify a bundle of > CDNs' to 'A REQUIRED "type" attribute is used to identify a bundle of CDNs' Thanks for your good suggestion. Cheers, Ning From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Dec 15 08:07:17 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 49FDD21F8888 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:07:17 -0800 (PST) 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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KSQrPB31hyNV for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AD2321F899D for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:07:15 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:07:14 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'James Mitchell'" , "'Hollenbeck, Scott'" , References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:07:09 +0800 Message-ID: <00bd01ccbb43$99588520$cc098f60$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIVpaiw0BFcCCUbLluvM9X63vNjHJVLO3SQ Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:07:17 -0000 > I also support a more general approach to IDN variants. I'm very glad to see your feedback. Thanks for your such support. Cheers, Ning From nkong@cnnic.cn Thu Dec 15 08:10:32 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 1F24721F8AC9 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:10:32 -0800 (PST) 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=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4IyXxfByO5-K for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 940F921F8ACC for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:10:24 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: nkong@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO naptrthink) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:10:23 +0800 From: "Ning Kong" To: "'Wil Tan'" , "'James Mitchell'" References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D56D4CA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:10:17 +0800 Message-ID: <00be01ccbb44$0a05bc20$1e113460$@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BF_01CCBB87.182DB710" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQD9XVhgGv7ZIk1hOccDWvpO2tecWQIVpaiwAlPanxGXWICiIA== Content-Language: zh-cn Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:10:32 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BF_01CCBB87.182DB710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Hi Wil, =20 Thanks! Looking forward to cooperating with you later. =20 Cheers, Ning =20 From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Wil Tan Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:03 PM To: James Mitchell Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt =20 On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Mitchell = wrote: > >In a private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the possibility >of this draft (and others like it) being revised to describe a more >general approach to IDN variants. I would support that effort. > I also support a more general approach to IDN variants. =20 =20 +1 I've also expressed the same interest to Ning in a private exchange, and = will gladly contribute to the efforts. =20 .wil ------=_NextPart_000_00BF_01CCBB87.182DB710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<= /span>

Hi = Wil,

<= /span>

Thanks! Looking = forward to cooperating with you later.

<= /span>

Cheers,=

Ning

<= /span>

From:= = provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Wil Tan
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:03 = PM
To: James Mitchell
Cc: = provreg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [provreg] Comments on = draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping-00.txt

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM, = James Mitchell <james.mitchell@ausregis= try.com.au> wrote:

>
>In a = private email exchange with Ning Kong we discussed the = possibility
>of this draft (and others like it) being revised to = describe a more
>general approach to IDN variants. I would = support that effort.
>
I also support a more general = approach to IDN variants.

I've also expressed the same = interest to Ning in a private exchange, and will gladly contribute to = the efforts.

.wil

------=_NextPart_000_00BF_01CCBB87.182DB710-- From michael@mwyoung.ca Tue Dec 20 13:38:54 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 C45BC1F0C4A for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:54 -0800 (PST) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sqnu-b8qLXkh for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA2B1F0C35 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by vcbfk13 with SMTP id fk13so5591136vcb.31 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.29.228 with SMTP id n4mr2439208vdh.57.1324417128916; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id du3sm135421vdc.12.2011.12.20.13.38.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:47 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:38:34 -0500 Message-ID: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Acy/UQZJVFZ1/dw9QHK5G8LHAveTjg== Content-Language: en-ca Cc: Frank Thompson , Oliver Fries , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, Len Subject: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 20 Dec 2011 21:38:54 -0000 Hi all, It's been a few years since I've posted to this list and I wonder how many of us are still subscribed to it. Hopefully enough to make this question meaningful. If you are tracking the new GTLD process closely you will have noticed a requirement in the draft Registry Agreement to format any EPP extensions in I-D format. It occurs to me that once Operators have gone to the trouble of doing this, numerous extensions may be submitted to the IETF for possibly the standards track but maybe even more commonly as informational. Here's my concern, that we will see numerous extensions with heavily overlapping purposes to solve the common problems of running and launching a TLD registry. It seems to me that it would be great to have a group of volunteers trying to rally disparate efforts to solve similar registry problems and create standardized extensions where feasible. I know we've talked about this sort of idea before around EPP extensions, but given the impending expansion of the TLD space I thought it was worth raising again. Thoughts? Comments? Best Regards, Michael Young M:+1-647-289-1220 From fobispo@isc.org Tue Dec 20 13:57:06 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 0908521F8482 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:57:06 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONAaTblScEIz for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A1821F8419 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:57:01 -0800 (PST) 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 B1E3A5F98B9; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:56:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:406:ca8c:961d:cbc7] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:406:ca8c:961d:cbc7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBED7216C6B; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:56:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:56:45 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> To: Michael Young X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: Frank Thompson , provreg@ietf.org, Oliver Fries , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, Len Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 20 Dec 2011 21:57:06 -0000 Hi Michael, I'm envisioning at least two: 1) Launch Phase extension (currently a draft from Wil Tan), 2) IDN - for collecting the "language tag" as required by ICANN's IDN implementation guidelines. I've written a draft for #2, which I could share/submit=20 if you guys find it useful. Francisco, On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Michael Young wrote: > Here's my concern, that we will see numerous extensions with heavily > overlapping purposes to solve the common problems of running and = launching a > TLD registry. It seems to me that it would be great to have a group = of > volunteers trying to rally disparate efforts to solve similar registry > problems and create standardized extensions where feasible. I know = we've > talked about this sort of idea before around EPP extensions, but given = the > impending expansion of the TLD space I thought it was worth raising = again. >=20 > Thoughts? Comments? >=20 >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > Michael Young > M:+1-647-289-1220 >=20 Francisco Obispo=20 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 michael@mwyoung.ca Tue Dec 20 14:04:49 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 B5DA811E808A for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:04:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aCj1HAgwvzFb for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC2E11E807F for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by vbbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so4681376vbb.31 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.31.166 with SMTP id b6mr2476455vdi.70.1324418688115; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from DUN20111 (CPEf81edff844ad-CM00080da07047.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.226.80.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id du3sm182274vdc.12.2011.12.20.14.04.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:04:47 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael Young" To: "'Francisco Obispo'" References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0500 Message-ID: <028e01ccbf63$5c619bb0$1524d310$@mwyoung.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIYIBYQgp7ELaycu384LuuUD3cWRQJTROqVlTvrgQA= Content-Language: en-ca Cc: 'Frank Thompson' , provreg@ietf.org, 'Oliver Fries' , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, 'Len' Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 20 Dec 2011 22:04:49 -0000 That would be great if you could submit #2, I think it would be extremely useful. I saw Wil's submission and am reviewing it currently. It seems like a sensible idea as well. Best Regards, Michael Young M:+1-647-289-1220 -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Obispo [mailto:fobispo@isc.org] Sent: December-20-11 4:57 PM To: Michael Young Cc: provreg@ietf.org; Frank Thompson; Oliver Fries; stpeter@stpeter.im; presnick@qualcomm.com; Len Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs Hi Michael, I'm envisioning at least two: 1) Launch Phase extension (currently a draft from Wil Tan), 2) IDN - for collecting the "language tag" as required by ICANN's IDN implementation guidelines. I've written a draft for #2, which I could share/submit if you guys find it useful. Francisco, On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Michael Young wrote: > Here's my concern, that we will see numerous extensions with heavily > overlapping purposes to solve the common problems of running and > launching a TLD registry. It seems to me that it would be great to > have a group of volunteers trying to rally disparate efforts to solve > similar registry problems and create standardized extensions where > feasible. I know we've talked about this sort of idea before around > EPP extensions, but given the impending expansion of the TLD space I thought it was worth raising again. > > Thoughts? Comments? > > > Best Regards, > > Michael Young > M:+1-647-289-1220 > Francisco Obispo email: fobispo@isc.org Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC Key fingerprint = 532F 84EB 06B4 3806 D5FA 09C6 463E 614E B38D B1BE From fobispo@isc.org Wed Dec 21 00:16:39 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 0C1BC21F84BB for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:16:39 -0800 (PST) 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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zBbnflzseVpY for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D36721F84A8 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:16:38 -0800 (PST) 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 3D348C944A; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:16:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [149.20.66.30] (unknown [149.20.66.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70021216C6B; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:16:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Francisco Obispo In-Reply-To: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B367683@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:16:23 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <74014871-31B1-439A-83A7-1F450AABB870@isc.org> References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B367683@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> To: Alexander Mayrhofer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: Frank Thompson , provreg@ietf.org, Oliver Fries , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, Len Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 08:16:39 -0000 Dear *, Yes, we will be doing that in a very short time, it is currently being = reviewed by a colleague who will do the actual submission. Will keep you informed. Best regards On Dec 21, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: >> 2) IDN - for collecting the "language tag" as required by >> ICANN's IDN implementation guidelines. >>=20 >> I've written a draft for #2, which I could share/submit if you guys > find it >> useful. >=20 > Francisco, >=20 > please submit and share the document. As an implementor of NTLD > registries, i'd find it very useful if the community could agree on = one > single way to do that. >=20 > Alex Francisco Obispo=20 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 gavin.brown@centralnic.com Wed Dec 21 01:32:04 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 D959221F8466 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:32:04 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q7UdYWYQX3mm for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:32:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.centralnic.com (smtp.centralnic.com [193.105.170.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3030221F8445 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:32:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from Gavins-MacBook-Pro.local (fs-3.zmg.lon.uk.centralnic.net [82.68.174.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.centralnic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA2B712B88; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:32:01 +0000 From: Gavin Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Obispo References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Frank Thompson , provreg@ietf.org, Oliver Fries , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, Len Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 09:32:05 -0000 On 20/12/2011 21:56, Francisco Obispo wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I'm envisioning at least two: > > 1) Launch Phase extension (currently a draft from Wil Tan), > > 2) IDN - for collecting the "language tag" as required by > ICANN's IDN implementation guidelines. 3) an extension to cover legal/natural person information and whois opt-in/out for contact objects, to meet EU data protection rules. Telnic has this, and PuntCAT recently submitted a RSTEP application for such an extension, but any other EU based gTLD registry will probably need something similar (although I am not sure if the existing element doesn't already provide this). G. -- 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 jothan@gmail.com Wed Dec 21 01:53:59 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 1781221F84DA for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:59 -0800 (PST) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8iYX53h86gY for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5866721F842F for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by eaak10 with SMTP id k10so248600eaa.31 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NIg2Rs+kJoz6P5plQUGOWtiJlAVciPFG9zmZ+3/HUiU=; b=OKsVT9R5bZo4BCNtIVaxo1seEqCZjwahxpVaPrYzvVTA2XmRSVj08aPYrolPZl2rho dcLMyuPqeCta+NSf1qYdMGd9hfYtVqNcZK4/8QskycB6wUFKfr1bj6dgCrgIJGXH+oqN mBiFVBSiPZ77u1AdGMVUYiqe+ix5cAJ6j1fXI= Received: by 10.204.157.154 with SMTP id b26mr1871406bkx.101.1324461235502; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.39.131 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> From: Jothan Frakes Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:53:13 -0800 Message-ID: To: Gavin Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Frank Thompson , provreg@ietf.org, Oliver Fries , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, Len Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 09:53:59 -0000 Gavin, you may be correct on What about extensions in support of the trademark clearinghouse functionality like registrant notices that registrars might be compelled to display... I think there's still some TBD in there, but also some of these will probably be out of band to the SRS/EPP communication. Happy Holidays to all my fellow EPP registry programmer friends out there. -Jothan Jothan Frakes +1.206-355-0230 tel +1.206-201-6881 fax On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Gavin Brown w= rote: > On 20/12/2011 21:56, Francisco Obispo wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> I'm envisioning at least two: >> >> 1) Launch Phase extension (currently a draft from Wil Tan), >> >> 2) IDN - for collecting the "language tag" as required by >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0ICANN's IDN implementation guidelines. > > > 3) an extension to cover legal/natural person information and whois > opt-in/out for contact objects, to meet EU data protection rules. Telnic = has > this, and PuntCAT recently submitted a RSTEP application for such an > extension, but any other EU based gTLD registry will probably need someth= ing > similar (although I am not sure if the existing elemen= t > doesn't already provide this). > > G. > > -- > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at Wed Dec 21 00:10:15 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 6858F21F84F5 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:10:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdHjbkpEXFED for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:10:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDC421F84ED for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from nics-exch.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.3]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1/SSLv3:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.47 ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:10:12 +0100 Received: from nics-mail.sbg.nic.at (10.17.175.2) by NICS-EXCH.sbg.nic.at (10.17.175.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:10:06 +0100 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:10:06 +0100 Message-ID: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650B367683@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> In-Reply-To: <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs Thread-Index: Acy/YlbCSy0pkxLfRiu1Ugck6kxCNwAVW0/Q References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> From: Alexander Mayrhofer To: Francisco Obispo , Michael Young X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:20:25 -0800 Cc: Frank Thompson , provreg@ietf.org, Oliver Fries , stpeter@stpeter.im, presnick@qualcomm.com, Len Subject: Re: [provreg] Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 08:10:15 -0000 > 2) IDN - for collecting the "language tag" as required by > ICANN's IDN implementation guidelines. >=20 > I've written a draft for #2, which I could share/submit if you guys find it > useful. Francisco, please submit and share the document. As an implementor of NTLD registries, i'd find it very useful if the community could agree on one single way to do that. Alex From Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Wed Dec 21 02:42:29 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 B9EFF21F84B8 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:42:29 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a79qwcEiP2Pa for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3b-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C49F21F84A4 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9CC49; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:42:27 +0100 (MEZ) 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 F70MG3Hrl-ay; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:42:22 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B06F48; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:42:22 +0100 (MEZ) 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 pBLAgL4P017049; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:42:22 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:42:21 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/11.0a1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Brown References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> In-Reply-To: <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 10:42:29 -0000 On 21/12/11 10:32, Gavin Brown wrote: > On 20/12/2011 21:56, Francisco Obispo wrote: > [...] > > 3) an extension to cover legal/natural person information and whois opt-in/out > for contact objects, to meet EU data protection rules. Telnic has this, and > PuntCAT recently submitted a RSTEP application for such an extension, but any > other EU based gTLD registry will probably need something similar (although I am > not sure if the existing element doesn't already provide this). > > G. > Hi, IMHO already provides sufficient control (except for the design flaw that you cannot grant and deny disclosures at the same time). However, having some insight, decisions were made less with the intention to provide the best technical solution or the best protection. So the chosen solution of associating the protection with the domain instead of the contact should IMHO not be regarded as exemplary. BTW, regarding data protection, it sounds quite strange that you can gain an extra point in the score in the application for a new gTLD (item #26) if one provides a searchable Whois. At least in the EU, the data protection officers would likely go crazy. But that's probably out of scope of this list. Regards, Klaus From shollenbeck@verisign.com Wed Dec 21 04:14:37 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 D287621F8ABC for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:14:37 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJY6aVSy12M1 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:14:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F0B21F8AB9 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:14:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTvHNn/RqQeRiWAln9U2TzcTl02QLtALl@postini.com; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:14:37 PST Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id pBLCEI1v000964; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:14:20 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXCAS02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.246]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:14:18 -0500 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:14:17 -0500 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Klaus Malorny Thread-Topic: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs Thread-Index: AQHMv80+xcG4aEsm6U6jkn+Rk/Bv4pXmL+3A Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:14:17 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D570905@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> In-Reply-To: <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2011 12:14:18.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[108466B0:01CCBFDA] Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 12:14:37 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Klaus Malorny > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:42 AM > To: Gavin Brown > Cc: provreg@ietf.org > Subject: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to > NTLDs >=20 > IMHO already provides sufficient control (except for > the > design flaw that you cannot grant and deny disclosures at the same > time). I'm going to disagree (again) on the "design flaw" point. As described in 5= 733: - The server operator publishes a data collection policy. - The client has the choice of accepting the policy *and* requesting except= ions (that is, granting and denying disclosures) as part of the same command. The server operator needs to publish a policy that meets the requirements o= f the local operating environment, such as is defined in the EU. It would = be a design flaw to allow the client to grant and/or deny disclosures in co= nflict with the server operator's data collection policy. Doing so would p= ut the server operator in an untenable state with respect to the client's d= ata. Scott From jim@rfc1035.com Wed Dec 21 04:50:03 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 1DF2721F8A80 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:50:03 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JfDSj+FJVVeE for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4577821F8A64 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09DBCBC44C; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:49:59 +0000 (GMT) Message-Id: From: Jim Reid To: Klaus Malorny In-Reply-To: <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:49:58 +0000 References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 12:50:03 -0000 On 21 Dec 2011, at 10:42, Klaus Malorny wrote: > IMHO already provides sufficient control (except > for the design flaw that you cannot grant and deny disclosures at > the same time). However, having some insight, decisions were made > less with the intention to provide the best technical solution or > the best protection. Klaus, you were not involved in those discussions or design decisions and are therefore not in a position to meaningfully comment on them. You are very wrong both personally and professionally to claim those decisions did not have those intentions. You're entitled to your opinion of course. But it's not based on insight into what was done for the .tel registry and why. As the person who had to make those decisions for the .tel registry, I do have that insight. [You had no interaction with ICANN or the UK DPA or Telnic management or its registry provider or too many lawyers on this issue whatsoever. I did.] What ended up being implemented was the best (or least-worst) choice that could be made at the time, given all the prevailing constraints. This had to take account of a lot of factors that were unknown to you. And apparently still are. > So the chosen solution of associating the protection with the domain > instead of the contact should IMHO not be regarded as exemplary. The same goes for a disclosure flag on the contact object. The short answer is there is no "one size fits all" solution to this problem. All answers are bad or flawed in some way. For starters, there is no common view on Data Protection law or its enforcement across the EU even though each national law is derived from the same EU directive(s). In some cases, a disclosure flag on a domain object will be the best (or least-worst) option. In others, it won't. For some, the option of having this flag on the contact object will work better. For others, it won't. Consider a contact object that's referenced from two domain objects. When the disclosure flag is on the contact object, this could be illegal and/or violate the registry contract with ICANN. If one of the domains that references the contact object is for an organisation, its Personal Data would not be getting disclosed when it should be made available. If the flag goes on the domain object, disclosure of the contact's Personal Data is determined by whether the domain is for an individual (not allowed) or an organisation (allowed and/or required). Which means the Personal Data could be obtained via a whois lookup of the Contact-ID when that data shouldn't be disclosed. Now it's possible to get round these problems by insisting on discrete contact objects with different disclosure flag settings when the registrant has a domain name for themself and another for their business. However registrants and some registrars tend to be less than enthusiastic about doing that for the obvious reasons. Another icky work-around is to consider using privacy/proxy services for whois. Which brings yet another set of hassles and rat-holes. Or the disclosure flags get applied to both domain and contact objects. Which is ugly. Pick your poison. We should also bear in mind on this list that there is not going to be an over-arching or perfect protocol solution to a layer-9 and above problem. FWIW, I have not followed PuntCAT's proposal. My guess is they may be cloning the Telnic one as the path of least resistance. If PuntCAT need to get their ICANN contract amended to comply with local Data Protection law, the quickest, cheapest and least painful way to do that might be to follow in Telnic's footsteps who sort of followed in GNR's (.name's) footsteps. [Though that depends on whether the UK and Spanish DPAs have a common view.] Doing anything else would open a world of pain that I wouldn't wish on anyone. From Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Wed Dec 21 06:27:50 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 5A94A21F8551 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:27:50 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bWYFilwCpr6s for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3b-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3FB21F84E5 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF86545; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:48 +0100 (MEZ) 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 XMjC9GpAsqwL; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:43 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505B844; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:43 +0100 (MEZ) 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 pBLERf9Z004215; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:41 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <4EF1ECDD.9060705@knipp.de> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:41 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/11.0a1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Reid References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> <4EF1B80D.8010601@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] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 14:27:50 -0000 On 21/12/11 13:49, Jim Reid wrote: > On 21 Dec 2011, at 10:42, Klaus Malorny wrote: > > [...] Hi Jim, first, I think I have stated clearly enough that this was my very personal opinion. Second, my insight *mostly* refers to my work with puntCAT. I got aware of some correspondence between the involved parties, including, but not limited to, the puntCAT organization and ICANN. Indeed, as you guessed, Telnic's/Neustar's deployed model played a major role and caused very valid arguments to be disregarded. And these arguments were not new. Whoever worked on the Telnic solution must have come across these also, and you actually confirmed it in your response to my e-mail. Regarding data protection, I have a clear opinion, namely that ICANN's claims have to recede behind the EU's and national privacy regulations, if the registry is located in the EU. And that the right of a person to have his data not to be disclosed does not depend on the use of the contact, so that the contact is the only valid place to define the disclosure. That said, I don't want to kick off a discussion here about the various views, but simply to explain my motivation. Regards, Klaus From Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Wed Dec 21 06:40:37 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 6A6D321F8876 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:40:37 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wxwyuqUURKVX for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3b-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD6D21F87FA for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:40:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1318449; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:36 +0100 (MEZ) 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 NXNh1-Xz6L-2; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:30 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8176748; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:30 +0100 (MEZ) 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 pBLEeUAe006819; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:30 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <4EF1EFDE.1040601@knipp.de> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:30 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/11.0a1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D570905@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D570905@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 14:40:37 -0000 On 21/12/11 13:14, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny Sent: >> Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:42 AM To: Gavin Brown Cc: provreg@ietf.org >> Subject: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs >> >> IMHO already provides sufficient control (except for >> the design flaw that you cannot grant and deny disclosures at the same >> time). > > I'm going to disagree (again) on the "design flaw" point. As described in > 5733: > > - The server operator publishes a data collection policy. - The client has > the choice of accepting the policy *and* requesting exceptions (that is, > granting and denying disclosures) as part of the same command. > > [...] Hi Scott, come on, we discussed this already quite a lot, if I remember correctly. If you have, say, the address to be disclosed, but the phone number to be undisclosed by default by the registry policy, you can't issue a create or update request that makes the address undisclosed and the phone number disclosed at the same time. If, for example, the "flag" attribute had been placed on the child elements of the element, this would have been possible. As the example I gave is IMHO a valid desire, I consider this as a flaw, although not as a serious one. Regards, Klaus From patrik@frobbit.se Wed Dec 21 06:54:48 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 8DAF321F8A80 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:54:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PQSU2oQfqvtn for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F0B21F8A70 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:54:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2399012A1E327; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:54:45 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-JpAOJhrPgp; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:54:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A6A12A1E320; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:54:44 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <4EF1EFDE.1040601@knipp.de> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:54:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <95D2EF8B-7A11-41B4-8B0D-C676140D336D@frobbit.se> References: <027601ccbf5f$ba81aa40$2f84fec0$@mwyoung.ca> <2F169F42-B432-470D-B13B-7A961240ED76@isc.org> <4EF1A791.4090904@centralnic.com> <4EF1B80D.8010601@knipp.de> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D570905@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <4EF1EFDE.1040601@knipp.de> To: Klaus Malorny X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EU data protection, was: Extensions in regards to NTLDs 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, 21 Dec 2011 14:54:48 -0000 On 21 dec 2011, at 15:40, Klaus Malorny wrote: > come on, we discussed this already quite a lot, if I remember = correctly. If you have, say, the address to be disclosed, but the phone = number to be undisclosed by default by the registry policy, you can't = issue a create or update request that makes the address undisclosed and = the phone number disclosed at the same time. If, for example, the "flag" = attribute had been placed on the child elements of the = element, this would have been possible. As the example I gave is IMHO a = valid desire, I consider this as a flaw, although not as a serious one. The problem we have is that in some cases the "disclose" flag on certain = attributes is a mix between the interest of the registrant and various = policies. Including what is invented by the registrar, invented by the = registry, legislation in the area where the registry is, where the = registrar is, or where the registrant is. And that boils down to various = disclosure flags be set by the registry, and others by the registrar, = and a third possibly by either registry or registrar. And the protocol = unfortunately is *E* pp where the E is a bit too extensive instead of = (for example with this disclosure flag on attributes) "us" trying to = solve the problem that exists. That have lead to each registry invent their own extensions that lead to = a pain for the registrars that try to communicate with more than one = registry. Which of course is very simple as the "cost" for private extensions is = linear to the number of extensions a registry has, but exponential on = the registrar as the combination of some policies / extensions are very = very hard to combine. So, I would encourage people to have as a very explicit goal to have as = few extensions as possible, and saying "we need a different extension = because our policy is this" is for me not good enough. It is possible to = either change or tweak the policy so that an already existing extension = can be used. To conclude: I do not care how the disclose mechanism is implemented, I = want one. And only one. And no pony attached with it. Patrik -- fighting specifically as implementor on registrar side with = VERY weird registry decisions so far in the world From fobispo@isc.org Wed Dec 21 16:32:52 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 637AA11E80D7 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:32:52 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ijm6oRUYQl5k for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:32:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3DF11E80B5 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:32:51 -0800 (PST) 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 393565F98B1; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:32:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:f9f3:a16a:5fb6:70f3] (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:f9f3:a16a:5fb6:70f3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E51E8216C6A; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:32:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: Francisco Obispo Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:32:27 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20111222002234.8359.14617.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Subject: [provreg] New Version Notification for draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt 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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:32:52 -0000 Draft for EPP-IDN extension has been submitted. Begin forwarded message: > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt > Date: December 21, 2011 4:22:34 PM PST > To: pselkirk@isc.org > Cc: lem@isc.org, fobispo@isc.org, pselkirk@isc.org >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt has been = successfully submitted by Paul Selkirk and posted to the IETF = repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-obispo-epp-idn > Revision: 00 > Title: Internationalized Domain Name Mapping Extension = for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > Creation date: 2011-12-21 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 8 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > extension mapping for the provisioning of Internationalized Domain > Names (IDN) stored in a shared central repository. This mapping > extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features > required to implement registrations of domain names in characters > sets other than ASCII. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat Francisco Obispo=20 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 patrik@frobbit.se Wed Dec 21 21:49:31 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 E096221F8B89 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:49:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjlUxGq6Sz9X for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3287521F8B7F for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A4612A2C2CD; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:49:29 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKeLbdEOiAtB; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:49:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9A712A2C2C6; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:49:28 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:49:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0CB499D3-A9F7-4D3B-A7BA-6410E306BD25@frobbit.se> References: <20111222002234.8359.14617.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Francisco Obispo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] New Version Notification for draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt 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: ,