From Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl Thu Jul 18 01:39:05 2013 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 6295B21F92C2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:39:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119] 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 OV8t4zIZER4h for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ede1-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB3111E80D7 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:39:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn_nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:x-forwarded-message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=x+/yY92wx6I7X4xMj7sNe51JFSgmlQmpWKnk2OX8z2g=; b=t5Y/WTqUKxC69MZCIqrr0C0hs+hrWOUTBdhTUDMk2fCIEhLH2Lo+5KQIje7zHtshj9zmEBVTXoV7v1kqWn/C18fYjdqbaiF37wXnqE4TBd6kabzM4Bb+F2vetHuVZ3P4VoKbw1gaL9w6SLaxboSGknPcaI341a7GaRAu+R6I/Qo= Received: from kahubcasn01.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.73]) by ede1-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id r6I8d04N003095-r6I8d04P003095 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=CAFAIL) for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:39:00 +0200 Received: from KAHUBCAS1.SIDN.local (192.168.2.41) by kahubcasn01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:38:59 +0200 Received: from [94.198.152.214] (94.198.152.214) by KAHUBCAS1.SIDN.local (192.168.2.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:38:59 +0200 Message-ID: <51E7A9A3.6050807@sidn.nl> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:38:59 +0200 From: Antoin Verschuren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "provreg@ietf.org" References: <20130711114702.10258.39846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130711114702.10258.39846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130711114702.10258.39846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [94.198.152.214] Subject: [provreg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.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, 18 Jul 2013 08:39:05 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Last week we submitted a version 03 of the EPP Keyrelay draft. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt We would like to inform you that there is now running code and operational experience for this proposal. Yesterday, the .nl registry has implemented EPP keyrelay in it's registry system following the 03 version of the draft, and 2 independent registrars have implemented and used this method successfully immediately after the release of the new registry software. Unfortunately reports on their experience is still all in Dutch, but there will be a more extensive report and white-paper out shortly. I can tell you though that the experience was very positive. The only remark the registrars had was that they wish they didn't have to wait for DNS TTL's to time out, but unfortunately propagation is an inherent property of DNS. I would like to solicit for your remarks and support for this draft. A simple "I like it now" or "go ahead" for the documentation of our running code would give us a good indication if the document is mature enough to ask the AD for adoption. (For those interested to read Dutch: http://www.sidnlabs.nl/uploads/tx_sidnpublications/wp_2013_EPP-keyrelay_v1.pdf http://www.ispam.nl/archives/33851/eerste-geautomatiseerde-dnssec-domeinnaam-verhuizing-ter-wereld/#more-33851 http://nieuws.mijndomein.nl/2013/07/17/mijndomein-schrijft-geschiedenis-secure-dnssec-verhuizing/ ) - -------- Origineel bericht -------- Onderwerp: New Version Notification for draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt Datum: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:47:02 -0700 Van: Aan: M. Groeneweg , R. (Miek) Gieben , Antoin Verschuren , Rik Ribbers A new version of I-D, draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt has been successfully submitted by R. (Miek) Gieben and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay Revision: 03 Title: Key Relay Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol Creation date: 2013-07-11 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 13 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03 Abstract: This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension mapping for the purpose of relaying DNSSEC key material from one DNS operator to another, by using the administrative registration channel through the registrant, registrar and registry. The mapping introduces "" as a new command in EPP. This command will help facilitate changing the DNS operator of a domain while keeping the DNSSEC chain of trust intact. The IETF Secretariat - -- Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands P: +31 26 3525500 M: +31 6 23368970 Mailto: antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl XMPP: antoin.verschuren@jabber.sidn.nl HTTP://www.sidn.nl/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR56mYAAoJEDqHrM883AgnflMH/3cGU2AxhNGb4w2QZGG40Fal V5c2ZDoBMCLQ6jAps5x9AG/o73NV5wmXCB+bRX/2v0CAi8qOMvQouvuTDz5A/tK6 aX0WSNzwh4SjGqXCuGtCBxHL/Tg2F8Afucm1NGo2Ov9JW1VRNI2NEgBhrYm8+Num XvacvA1H81RlMoj116NOMmiHZlayLOiA3DrU6gASbgnOMoYEl5S/0Xkvupu7fRlb yINJ5aqWzpkboor6Tmyzg0s3fMmlIhLYEMbOzjGNJhbPhAgqKDz/sqvr6UagGrIt lI5YBxTNlQL7CyyvG+YTX8yaszKW5WHAhIbgbPY0lh9tV91Yw6D4lveA7VQ+1uo= =ZqJR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rlegene@gmail.com Thu Jul 18 02:45:59 2013 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 19D9711E8104 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:45:59 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 LbuRzMnhO1Cv for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x236.google.com (mail-vc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9BA11E8107 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id id13so2177259vcb.13 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:45:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=sxmizNUBnTJgpta19apnVrk5jGyu0dSCmSsPMb6vkh0=; b=RLq62YnxCDAweuWleZfB3dFZNi0yWsILcujJio2MnHhTXyweTnx1E1q9Vvob/grg4s hTz+4/tarPYxr3SOgrdm//kv0Tsppepcead6OQYN6d+iSDcejyS7jHHsCpHglkr85hx8 LM5gz96BrVzA8bAY9okowcPuyadhE0e/TLz8obq2u136QSrGt7lGTl6uili/RVh055jF bAg6q+I/9fQaefJuIh1RXshKE5jQijZNjJimFIjt1coAc0RG75G5o85Z75h+D+DU8iUX jdMfKf0Hge9aX8qIqH+s2RnX9IaJ5X0BeYp/OrFZgzeIkE4QaREnel5t+30KXXIGrLlu l7Aw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.237.105 with SMTP id vb9mr185007vec.2.1374140757459; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.251.42 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:45:57 -0300 Message-ID: From: Robert Martin-Legene To: provreg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294a50b8787704e1c613ad Subject: Re: [provreg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.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, 18 Jul 2013 09:45:59 -0000 --089e01294a50b8787704e1c613ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Antoin. I like this draft and can see it is beneficial and fills a gap in the automation process. I think the subject it covers makes it worthy of becoming an RFC. Kind regards, Robert Martin-Legene --089e01294a50b8787704e1c613ad Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Antoin.

I like this draft= and can see it is beneficial and fills a gap in the automation process. I = think the subject it covers makes it worthy of becoming an RFC.

Kind regards,

=A0 Robert Martin-Legene
--089e01294a50b8787704e1c613ad-- From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Jul 22 06:16:19 2013 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 37CB821E80AA for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:16:19 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 A6MTeEZ9FTLu for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og118.obsmtp.com (exprod6og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C2321E80A6 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob118.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUe0wnII8fjkvZleuXTOihH9/h1lolsgK@postini.com; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:16:14 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r6MDG9YB014672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:16:12 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:16:09 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: AQHOhMKqavvb6TWw+02ZWWDe3eA/lplwsMQw Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:16:08 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: In-Reply-To: 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:16:19 -0000 UGxlYXNlIHNlZSB0aGUgbm90ZSBiZWxvdyBmcm9tIEpvaG4gTGV2aW5lLiBEb2VzIGFueW9uZSBr bm93IG9mIGFueSBvdGhlciBFUFAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0aGF0IG1lZXQgdGhlIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMg bGFpZCBvdXQgYnkgUGV0ZT8gSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIgbm9uLVZlcmlzaWduIGV4dGVu c2lvbnMsIHRvby4NCg0KSWYgdGhpcyBlZmZvcnQgaXMgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCB3ZSBtYXkgaGF2ZSBh IGJldHRlciBjaGFuY2Ugb2YgY3JlYXRpbmcgYSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHRvIGRldmVsb3AgZXh0 ZW5zaW9ucyB0aGF0IGRvbid0IHlldCBleGlzdCBvciBoYXZlbid0IGJlZW4gZG9jdW1lbnRlZCBp biB0aGUgSUVURi4NCg0KU2NvdHQNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJv bTogSm9obiBSIExldmluZSBbbWFpbHRvOmpvaG5sQHRhdWdoLmNvbV0gDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXks IEp1bHkgMTksIDIwMTMgNDo1OCBQTQ0KVG86IEhvbGxlbmJlY2ssIFNjb3R0OyBGcmFuY2lzY28g T2Jpc3BvOyBXaWwgVGFuOyBHb3VsZCwgSmFtZXMNClN1YmplY3Q6IEVQUCBleHRlbnNpb25zIHdv cmtpbmcgZ3JvdXANCg0KSSB0YWxrZWQgdG8gUGV0ZSBSZXNuaWNrLCBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIElFVEYg YXBwcyBhcmVhIEFEcyB5ZXN0ZXJkYXksIGFuZCBoZSANCnNheXMgaGUncyB3aWxsaW5nIHRvIHNl dCB1cCBhIHNob3J0IGxpdmVkIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgdG8gdHVybiBFUFAgDQpleHRlbnNpb24g ZHJhZnRzIGludG8gUkZDcy4gIFRoZXJlIGFyZSB0d28gY29uZGl0aW9uczogdGhhdCB3ZSBpZGVu dGlmeSANCnRoZSBkcmFmdHMgaW4gYWR2YW5jZSwgYWxsIG9mIHdoaWNoIGhhdmUgdG8gYmUgaW4g Y3VycmVudCB1c2UsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHdlIA0Kcm91bmQgdXAgZW5vdWdoIHBlb3BsZSB3aXRoIGlt cGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgdG8gcmVhZCB0aGVtIGFuZCANCmNvbmZpcm0gdGhhdCB3 aGF0IHdlIHBsYW4gdG8gcHVibGlzaCBpcyB3aGF0IHRoZXkgaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQuDQoNClRoZSBk cmFmdHMgY3VycmVudGx5IG9uIG15IGxpc3QgYXJlOg0KDQpJRE4gTGFuZ3VhZ2UgVGFnIChodHRw OuKBhOKBhHd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbmluYy5jb23igYRhc3NldHPigYRpZG4tbGFuZ3VhZ2UtdGFnLnBk ZikNClJHUCBQb2xsIE1hcHBpbmcgKGh0dHA64oGE4oGEd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduaW5jLmNvbeKBhGFz c2V0c+KBhHdob2lzLWluZm8tZXh0ZW5zaW9uLnBkZikNCldob2lzIEluZm8gRXh0ZW5zaW9uICho dHRwOuKBhOKBhHd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbmluYy5jb23igYRhc3NldHPigYR3aG9pcy1pbmZvLWV4dGVu c2lvbi5wZGYpDQpDb25zb2xpRGF0ZSBNYXBwaW5nIChodHRwOuKBhOKBhHd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbmlu Yy5jb23igYRhc3NldHPigYRjb25zb2xpZGF0ZS1tYXBwaW5nLnR4dCkNCk5hbWVTdG9yZSBFeHRl bnNpb24gKGh0dHA64oGE4oGEd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduaW5jLmNvbeKBhGFzc2V0c+KBhG5hbWVzdG9y ZS1leHRlbnNpb24ucGRmKQ0KTG93IEJhbGFuY2UgTWFwcGluZyAoaHR0cDrigYTigYR3d3cudmVy aXNpZ25pbmMuY29t4oGEYXNzZXRz4oGEbG93LWJhbGFuY2UtbWFwcGluZy5wZGYpDQoNCmRyYWZ0 LW9iaXNwby1lcHAtaWRuDQoNCmRyYWZ0LXRhbi1lcHAtbGF1bmNocGhhc2UNCg0KSWYgdGhlcmUg YXJlIGFueSBtb3JlIHlvdSB0aGluayB3ZSBzaG91bGQgYWRkLCBwbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1lIGtub3cu DQoNCkFsc28sIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgYmlnIGhlbHAgaWYgeW91IGNvdWxkIHN1Z2dlc3QgcGVv cGxlIGF0IHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMgYW5kIA0KcmVnaXN0cmFycyB3aG8gaGF2ZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCB0 aGVzZSBzbyB3ZSBjYW4gYXNrIHRoZW0gdG8gcmVhZCBhbG9uZy4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkpvaG4g TGV2aW5lLCBqb2hubEB0YXVnaC5jb20sIFRhdWdoYW5ub2NrIE5ldHdvcmtzLCBUcnVtYW5zYnVy ZyBOWQ0KIkkgZHJvcHBlZCB0aGUgdG9vdGhwYXN0ZSIsIHNhaWQgVG9tLCBjcmVzdGZhbGxlbmx5 Lg0K From paf@frobbit.se Mon Jul 22 06:23:12 2013 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 381B011E8107 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:23:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 TlfteWNPdAhr for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C5411E80E2 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1::f0d2:90f4:82f1:f0a6] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:0:f0d2:90f4:82f1:f0a6]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0031223F79; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:22:54 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: =?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:22:54 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:23:12 -0000 I fully support any work that make this list shorter: Patrik On 22 jul 2013, at 15:16, "Hollenbeck, Scott" = wrote: > Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any = other EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like = to consider non-Verisign extensions, too. >=20 > If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a = working group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't been = documented in the IETF. >=20 > Scott >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:58 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Francisco Obispo; Wil Tan; Gould, James > Subject: EPP extensions working group >=20 > I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and = he=20 > says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP=20 > extension drafts into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we = identify=20 > the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and = that we=20 > round up enough people with implementation experience to read them and=20= > confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented. >=20 > The drafts currently on my list are: >=20 > IDN Language Tag = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84idn-lan= guage-tag.pdf) > RGP Poll Mapping = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-i= nfo-extension.pdf) > Whois Info Extension = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-i= nfo-extension.pdf) > ConsoliDate Mapping = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84consoli= date-mapping.txt) > NameStore Extension = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84namesto= re-extension.pdf) > Low Balance Mapping = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84low-bal= ance-mapping.pdf) >=20 > draft-obispo-epp-idn >=20 > draft-tan-epp-launchphase >=20 > If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. >=20 > Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries = and=20 > registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read = along. >=20 > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Jul 22 06:27:54 2013 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 1361421F9E3B for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:27:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 iL87uq+6ebGZ for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og123.obsmtp.com (exprod6og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43C821E80B5 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob123.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUe0zNyhaWGU5IrOX/hxk8e0Q32Z3YnlY@postini.com; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:27:25 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r6MDRGp3026785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:27:19 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:27:16 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: =?utf-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= Thread-Topic: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: AQHOhMKqavvb6TWw+02ZWWDe3eA/lplwsMQwgABF6QD//73eoA== Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:27:15 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> In-Reply-To: <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:27:54 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBQYXRyaWsgRsOkbHRzdHLDtm0g W21haWx0bzpwYWZAZnJvYmJpdC5zZV0NCj4gU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBKdWx5IDIyLCAyMDEzIDk6 MjMgQU0NCj4gVG86IEhvbGxlbmJlY2ssIFNjb3R0DQo+IENjOiBwcm92cmVnQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbcHJvdnJlZ10gRlc6IEVQUCBleHRlbnNpb25zIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAN Cj4gDQo+IEkgZnVsbHkgc3VwcG9ydCBhbnkgd29yayB0aGF0IG1ha2UgdGhpcyBsaXN0IHNob3J0 ZXI6DQo+IA0KPiA8aHR0cDovL3NlYXJjaC5jcGFuLm9yZy9kaXN0L05ldC1EUkkvPg0KDQpEbyB5 b3Uga25vdyB3aGljaCBvZiB0aG9zZSBleGlzdCBpbiBJLUQgZm9ybSwgUGF0cmlrPw0KDQpTY290 dA0KDQoNCg== From wil@cloudregistry.net Mon Jul 22 06:41:06 2013 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 3723011E8105 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:41:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 fDTxL3GRR6vm for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4916711E80AE for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l18so1061009wgh.11 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=SG6fqnzxgu1jUgha19Jr2PeTMG2xm1F4bDSsm7dZPNI=; b=T4DIJCUx841koKbpswctdKvk38g6Gif0HFVWE86+0f+6tB1dU+Y19J9RSLgyfE6tWb ZwBByyXReo5SNZN7Gr6YtsW4dqSNsEIlfW1N1AO/m95uAp32XdPiYH73uev5Aas593Y1 f0MDiAXtdFNhX8RVGruH0+JbvhpQOFGbej8v8EXYwc/rTfVai8Rc/15hVlNFnwsZf5vr vfhK2oP4B6rfLec+hB3y1w7VK+sFNxCwAsXUbORa5ftfXKekVKO4G94Y0DpaIPcU98Xk MqrIUPVQ5LIhlqCE/4Zl+YFkYjq/kQOVwGB9LduoO1SE1eWkLkX/K3/N1Hs5/M5hD7bF eZ5A== X-Received: by 10.194.82.193 with SMTP id k1mr19067682wjy.21.1374500457354; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.77.2 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> From: Wil Tan Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:40:17 +0900 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04a62812b4404e219d392 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkH4dn755pIJxDbTgWXW8jycKgE1HSQR3AM70XH+Es/gQagWRb0kRvFmSuzYhFDgUnJM2xZ Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:06 -0000 --047d7bb04a62812b4404e219d392 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Patrik F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m wrote: > I fully support any work that make this list shorter: > > > It certainly won't shorten the list, but will hopefully encourage reuse and slow the proliferation of extensions created for nearly identical purposes. .wil --047d7bb04a62812b4404e219d392 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Patrik F=C3=A4ltstr=C3= =B6m <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I fully support any work that make this list= shorter:

<http= ://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-DRI/>

It certainly won't shorten the list, but will hopefully encourage reu= se and slow the proliferation of extensions created for nearly identical pu= rposes.

.wil
--047d7bb04a62812b4404e219d392-- From paf@frobbit.se Mon Jul 22 06:56:48 2013 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 8789A11E8109 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 4E0XwpdENIcc for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DD011E810D for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1::f0d2:90f4:82f1:f0a6] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:0:f0d2:90f4:82f1:f0a6]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD73E23F5C; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:56:34 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:56:32 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9C926DFC-E953-43CE-A16D-DCB6BEE29826@frobbit.se> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:56:59 -0000 On 22 jul 2013, at 15:27, "Hollenbeck, Scott" = wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:23 AM >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott >> Cc: provreg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group >>=20 >> I fully support any work that make this list shorter: >>=20 >> >=20 > Do you know which of those exist in I-D form, Patrik? Unfortunately not. Patrik From paf@frobbit.se Mon Jul 22 06:57:50 2013 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 DA85C11E810D for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:57:50 -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=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 rwug3M9U6NMI for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105D421E8084 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyn-fg142.sth.netnod.se (dyn-fg142.sth.netnod.se [77.72.226.142]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D78823F63; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:57:46 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C0CA4FC4-1A00-47E4-B432-7E93DF60094C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:57:45 +0200 Message-Id: <75C99E48-32E3-4F3F-B04B-5ED33E50B8B1@frobbit.se> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> To: Wil Tan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:57:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C0CA4FC4-1A00-47E4-B432-7E93DF60094C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On 22 jul 2013, at 15:40, Wil Tan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m = wrote: > I fully support any work that make this list shorter: >=20 > >=20 > It certainly won't shorten the list, but will hopefully encourage = reuse and slow the proliferation of extensions created for nearly = identical purposes. True, but it would be even cooler if an initiative like this in a = combination of IETF/ICANN/*TLD have as a goal to shorten the list. And = IF the list ends up being shorter, I buy chocolate to everyone! (well, = maybe not but anyway... :-P paf --Apple-Mail=_C0CA4FC4-1A00-47E4-B432-7E93DF60094C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 wil@cloudregistry.net> = wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM, = Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m <paf@frobbit.se> 
I fully = support any work that make this list shorter:

<http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-DRI/>

It certainly won't shorten the list, but will = hopefully encourage reuse and slow the proliferation of extensions = created for nearly identical = purposes.

True, but it = would be even cooler if an initiative like this in a combination of = IETF/ICANN/*TLD have as a goal to shorten the list. And IF the list ends = up being shorter, I buy chocolate to everyone! (well, maybe not but = anyway... :-P

  =  paf

= --Apple-Mail=_C0CA4FC4-1A00-47E4-B432-7E93DF60094C-- From ewout@mdmail.nl Mon Jul 22 06:40:39 2013 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 5327411E8107 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.975 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=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 a1upMLXw1BLq for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB1F11E80AE for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u55so1210099wes.27 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=9mQW6I/pyLTBVY9O0ve8StYxQRDn5lg/Wpj/bRaT7E0=; b=JHV/f1zwJQzEYdWRJo0pRMU46VqvekAfoVZmnyldWjsTuCHG4iUMDT5OxgtZaXgoIa gb5toSSeexCiqytCNOqYoF1nW2xdaoQHivEwW97PJ2a3E3NWbQ1kiXf1+B3j+SfSwbsK HkGamDQnrdWI0+SvjoL6vXZHb7Ouba7ruRJbQ2g4rwPSFKmUIZw4S2LHx4R0R3uUGBfH J0VcfqUXL1H26UVJEYWV/JiUM8z4nFNkU2yUK+ejctY1d3mRAtPI0QdqWHRgzeC67RT2 5xPu0m72Hs0sgPXdV99tKcRSGMonDf/z2it9n+10wMNHKnMJrjcAY3naB2bUi2/f61Oi WrvA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.110.6 with SMTP id hw6mr19903791wjb.3.1374500427065; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: ewout@mdmail.nl Received: by 10.216.194.136 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [84.245.47.200] In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:40:26 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: f2XjsN5wFaRudXmkueC4Y05kC28 Message-ID: From: Ewout de Graaf To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf1985eb2fa7604e219d1df X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnC8ON/u6eo/2U95M79ZwiWd0tFOz88T43lK6+byxYG5bnmHNRL4fnRM0ff62ezbA8Dr+fz X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:58:41 -0700 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 13:40:39 -0000 --047d7bf1985eb2fa7604e219d1df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A standardized undelete / remove from quarantine EPP extension would be nice. And since this track will take some time, an extension to support secure DNSSEC transfers. We tested http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/ with success. Kind regards, Ewout de Graaf Metaregistrar 2013/7/22 Hollenbeck, Scott > Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any other > EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like to > consider non-Verisign extensions, too. > > If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a > working group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't been > documented in the IETF. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:58 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Francisco Obispo; Wil Tan; Gould, James > Subject: EPP extensions working group > > I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and he > says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP > extension drafts into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we identify > the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and that w= e > round up enough people with implementation experience to read them and > confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented. > > The drafts currently on my list are: > > IDN Language Tag (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84asse= ts=E2=81=84idn-language-tag.pdf) > RGP Poll Mapping (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com > =E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-info-extension.pdf) > Whois Info Extension (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com > =E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-info-extension.pdf) > ConsoliDate Mapping (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com > =E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84consolidate-mapping.txt) > NameStore Extension (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com > =E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84namestore-extension.pdf) > Low Balance Mapping (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com > =E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84low-balance-mapping.pdf) > > draft-obispo-epp-idn > > draft-tan-epp-launchphase > > If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. > > Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries an= d > registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read along. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg > --047d7bf1985eb2fa7604e219d1df Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A standardized undelete / remove from qua= rantine EPP extension would be nice.

And since th= is track will take some time, an extension to support secure DNSSEC transfe= rs.
We tested=C2=A0http://datatracker= .ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/=C2=A0with success.



Ewout de Graaf
Metaregistrar


2013/7/22 Hollenbeck, Scott <sho= llenbeck@verisign.com>
Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any other E= PP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like to co= nsider non-Verisign extensions, too.

If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a work= ing group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't bee= n documented in the IETF.

Scott


-----Original Message-----
From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.= com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:58 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Francisco Obispo; Wil Tan; Gould, James
Subject: EPP extensions working group

I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and he says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP
extension drafts into RFCs. =C2=A0There are two conditions: that we identif= y
the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and that we<= br> round up enough people with implementation experience to read them and
confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented.

The drafts currently on my list are:

IDN Language Tag (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84idn-l= anguage-tag.pdf)
RGP Poll Mapping (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois= -info-extension.pdf)
Whois Info Extension (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84w= hois-info-extension.pdf)
ConsoliDate Mapping (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84co= nsolidate-mapping.txt)
NameStore Extension (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84na= mestore-extension.pdf)
Low Balance Mapping (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84lo= w-balance-mapping.pdf)

draft-obispo-epp-idn

draft-tan-epp-launchphase

If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know.

Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries and<= br> registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read along.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taugha= nnock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

--047d7bf1985eb2fa7604e219d1df-- From Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl Mon Jul 22 07:05:08 2013 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 65B3311E80F5 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.717 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119] 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 pYpSfDq6xkKK for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ede1-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D4711E80F0 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:05:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn_nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=bLOHKfXY2b5im+qkAeTlHLz/1OzfRXgLNZJfWZkjsjU=; b=pJo/pVIhA3lLFtJi590zo6tq4GJdiPs8igxIbKUPW9BAulOasU6N0EkQliotKHt4qqfEwTbwUuq1zuWP1kpHLt1mh1cyKu0yGx1BUXrFN0tTCoNMhG1HKqlikc4wzOtymbgLmoEf7fPZ7WDckIoeXxNOxjnYF/zxwbCFO9i8E14= Received: from kahubcasn02.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.74]) by ede1-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id r6ME537w003402-r6ME5380003402 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=CAFAIL) for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:05:03 +0200 Received: from [94.198.152.221] (94.198.152.221) by kahubcasn02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:05:02 +0200 Message-ID: <51ED3C0D.3030708@sidn.nl> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:05:01 +0200 From: Antoin Verschuren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [94.198.152.221] Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 14:05:08 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 22-07-13 15:27, Hollenbeck, Scott schreef: >> > > Do you know which of those exist in I-D form, Patrik? Net::DRI has just implemented http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt This I-D is almost finished, I was actually going to approach Pete for AD adoption. It was implemented 2 weeks ago, and in use, as you can read in english here: http://www.domainnews.com/en/secure-transfer-method-for-dnssec-secured-domain-names-already-out-to-successful-use.html The draft contains the running code that we implemented. So it meets the criteria, and I'm happy to work on this. - - Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands P: +31 26 3525500 M: +31 6 23368970 Mailto: antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl XMPP: antoin.verschuren@jabber.sidn.nl HTTP://www.sidn.nl/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR7TwMAAoJEDqHrM883AgnQa4IAIbIgMRINejZUZXRiRotAArt ByNtgzMNSuWZ8OaL+2gOHUrgybnlGUK5EPCDYG6i0f8okH0lAOaj3YH5yfp+hPR0 cR8xMCQQQveoDYXUtH06WHGxBqqDDqxoDpGOf/Rbkcx7jE40bLG50+58mVr7xSx4 ouN708s4toBVLAgsnsPmnkxKt/Kp/xtYScntUpS60LKBTmycLneA+N10fm7jii+9 fAGcbjZsBOY5PwHFxsVLCHmJyzu0yOJsa/ANG0dE80MsbN5WNRCw2+5oGGgGesxf 2s8blbfvxaN+OWLphn5wCfvj4G6inep32Je4s5TSVhufUJ7yGndEyvz/8OvfWEo= =pT91 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fneves@registro.br Mon Jul 22 07:30:36 2013 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 D387E21F8427 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:30:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 mKNsS5CLUzeN for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:2::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0993F11E80D9 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by clone.registro.br (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A64FBE0457; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:27:17 -0300 (BRT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:27:17 -0300 From: Frederico A C Neves To: "provreg@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20130722142717.GH64849@registro.br> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 14:30:37 -0000 Scott, On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:16:08PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any other EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like to consider non-Verisign extensions, too. > > If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a working group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't been documented in the IETF. > We've two extensions used since 2006 to associate tax-payers IDs in Brazil to .br domain names. ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-brorg-05.txt ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-brdomain-04.txt And we've two extensions used since 2010 for allocation/assignment and reallocation/reassignment for ASNs and IP blocks. It's being used by LACNIC and the two NIRs or the region, Nic.br and Nic.mx and it's being used by large ISPs to automate their provisioning systems too. ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-asn-02.txt ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-asn-02.txt > Scott Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:58 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Francisco Obispo; Wil Tan; Gould, James > Subject: EPP extensions working group > > I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and he > says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP > extension drafts into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we identify > the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and that we > round up enough people with implementation experience to read them and > confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented. > > The drafts currently on my list are: > > IDN Language Tag (http:??????www.verisigninc.com???assets???idn-language-tag.pdf) > RGP Poll Mapping (http:??????www.verisigninc.com???assets???whois-info-extension.pdf) > Whois Info Extension (http:??????www.verisigninc.com???assets???whois-info-extension.pdf) > ConsoliDate Mapping (http:??????www.verisigninc.com???assets???consolidate-mapping.txt) > NameStore Extension (http:??????www.verisigninc.com???assets???namestore-extension.pdf) > Low Balance Mapping (http:??????www.verisigninc.com???assets???low-balance-mapping.pdf) > > draft-obispo-epp-idn > > draft-tan-epp-launchphase > > If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. > > Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries and > registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read along. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From ed.lewis@neustar.biz Mon Jul 22 07:57:22 2013 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 9A6A011E80F7 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:57:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.868 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 0WMC0NlVHZbs for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp161.dfw.emailsrvr.com (smtp161.dfw.emailsrvr.com [67.192.241.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD78E11E810E for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 39F24270415; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:55:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: edlewis-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 047CA2700EA; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C98C9598-640B-4FDF-88D6-30F3EDB08AE0" From: Edward Lewis In-Reply-To: <75C99E48-32E3-4F3F-B04B-5ED33E50B8B1@frobbit.se> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:55:55 -0400 Message-Id: <621D04ED-23F8-4ABB-81BB-29B627AA8B2D@neustar.biz> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <75C99E48-32E3-4F3F-B04B-5ED33E50B8B1@frobbit.se> To: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 14:57:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C98C9598-640B-4FDF-88D6-30F3EDB08AE0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 As someone that has dealt more with the forces behind EPP than the = implementation of the code, I'm not sure upon which open forum I'd place = the onus of shortening the CPAN list. Shortening "the list" is a worthy = goal, don't get me wrong. It's that the first step of choosing the = right forum is important to success. The reason is that one might be = able to combine certain extensions into one but getting a registry to = adopt the new version over the existing extension is more important in = declaring success than publishing a document. What I learned in 2010 or so's dabbling in "wither EPP 2.0?" was that = registries need an economic reason to make an engineering change. I = feel, without every performing an survey of registrars, that they have a = similar need. What I want to avoid is the IETF's proclivity to assume = "if we build it they will come" going into a working group or we will = see a reprise of the CRISP WG's IRIS. This isn't to say that the list that started this thread shouldn't be = collected into a new IETF working group. Those are existing internet = drafts and are candidates for adoption by sets of operators. The list = of items on the CPAN site don't fit that profile, trying to combine work = that has already been completed is much different than working a "green = field." On Jul 22, 2013, at 9:57, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: >=20 > On 22 jul 2013, at 15:40, Wil Tan wrote: >=20 >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m = wrote: >> I fully support any work that make this list shorter: >>=20 >> >>=20 >> It certainly won't shorten the list, but will hopefully encourage = reuse and slow the proliferation of extensions created for nearly = identical purposes. >=20 > True, but it would be even cooler if an initiative like this in a = combination of IETF/ICANN/*TLD have as a goal to shorten the list. And = IF the list ends up being shorter, I buy chocolate to everyone! (well, = maybe not but anyway... :-P >=20 > paf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg = -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Edward Lewis =20 NeuStar You can leave a voice message at = +1-571-434-5468 There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses. --Apple-Mail=_C98C9598-640B-4FDF-88D6-30F3EDB08AE0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

What I learned in 2010 or so's = dabbling in "wither EPP 2.0?" was that registries need an economic = reason to make an engineering change.  I feel, without every = performing an survey of registrars, that they have a similar need. =  What I want to avoid is the IETF's proclivity to assume "if we = build it they will come" going into a working group or we will see a = reprise of the CRISP WG's IRIS.

This isn't to = say that the list that started this thread shouldn't be collected into a = new IETF working group.  Those are existing internet drafts and are = candidates for adoption by sets of operators.  The list of items on = the CPAN site don't fit that profile, trying to combine work that has = already been completed is much different than working a "green = field."

On Jul 22, 2013, at 9:57, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m = wrote:

wil@cloudregistry.net> = wrote:

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM, = Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m <paf@frobbit.se> 
I fully support any work that make this list = shorter:

<http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-DRI/>

It certainly won't shorten the list, but will = hopefully encourage reuse and slow the proliferation of extensions = created for nearly identical = purposes.

True, but it = would be even cooler if an initiative like this in a combination of = IETF/ICANN/*TLD have as a goal to shorten the list. And IF the list ends = up being shorter, I buy chocolate to everyone! (well, maybe not but = anyway... :-P

  =  paf

______________________________________= _________
provreg mailing list
provreg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Edward = Lewis             
NeuStar       = ;          =    You can leave a voice message at = +1-571-434-5468

There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, = and responses.

= --Apple-Mail=_C98C9598-640B-4FDF-88D6-30F3EDB08AE0-- From brunner@nic-naa.net Mon Jul 22 10:16:40 2013 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 2E15F21F8424 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.162 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 8JYx--DtWspe for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wampumpeag.net (unknown [65.99.1.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C15011E80DE for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from abalone.local ([67.42.198.88]) by wampumpeag.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r6MGelTC034079 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:40:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-ID: <51ED608E.6030704@nic-naa.net> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:40:46 -0700 From: Eric Brunner-Williams Organization: wampumpeag User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: provreg@ietf.org References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <75C99E48-32E3-4F3F-B04B-5ED33E50B8B1@frobbit.se> <621D04ED-23F8-4ABB-81BB-29B627AA8B2D@neustar.biz> In-Reply-To: <621D04ED-23F8-4ABB-81BB-29B627AA8B2D@neustar.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:16:40 -0000 > As someone that has dealt more with the forces behind EPP ... +1. I went into the Vertical Integration Working Group (an ICANN thing) with the hope that a 15% registry ownership cap in registrars would force a 7-to-1 shared resource pattern. The ICANN Board decided each registry could be its own registrar. Fortunately, the vast majority of the ~2k applicants settled on one of ~40 registry service providers, and these share costs, hence fate, across multiple tenant registry contract holders. But fundamentally, the shared registrar (poli-db-access-agent) is broken by the uni-db-access-agent, historically do-what-vgrs-does, now do-what-each-go-it-alone-operator-does, with the semi-orthogonal feature of ~.2k non-gTLDs, some of which are "in scope". I don't expect chocolate from paf any time soon. Eric From paf@frobbit.se Mon Jul 22 14:22:26 2013 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 8AFE311E8150 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:22:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 GIPnC5f1GCBg for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3956B11E815B for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.6] (c193-14-105-80.cust.tele2.se [193.14.105.80]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E009121C3E; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:22:19 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D5914929-CD41-456F-A15E-2BD1ED3175E3" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <621D04ED-23F8-4ABB-81BB-29B627AA8B2D@neustar.biz> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:22:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1D4C26C5-9A6D-448E-AA42-07D3812012A4@frobbit.se> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <75C99E48-32E3-4F3F-B04B-5ED33E50B8B1@frobbit.se> <621D04ED-23F8-4ABB-81BB-29B627AA8B2D@neustar.biz> To: Edward Lewis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 21:22:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D5914929-CD41-456F-A15E-2BD1ED3175E3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On 22 jul 2013, at 16:55, Edward Lewis wrote: > What I learned in 2010 or so's dabbling in "wither EPP 2.0?" was that = registries need an economic reason to make an engineering change. This is why I at the ICANN meeting had a presentation that it is not the = *registries* that make the choice by the registrars (on behalf of the = registrants). I.e. the classical view is that we have one TLD/registry and to that we = have many registrars. That is wrong. Instead we have one registrant, one or more registrars and then many = many registries. So the economical incentive for registries is to do what their = registrants, via the registrars, have interest in, which is to = harmonize. ;-) Patrik --Apple-Mail=_D5914929-CD41-456F-A15E-2BD1ED3175E3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 ed.lewis@neustar.biz> = wrote:
What I learned in 2010 or so's = dabbling in "wither EPP 2.0?" was that registries need an economic = reason to make an engineering = change.

This is why I at the ICANN = meeting had a presentation that it is not the *registries* that make the = choice by the registrars (on behalf of the = registrants).

I.e. the classical view is that = we have one TLD/registry and to that we have many = registrars.

That is = wrong.

Instead we have one registrant, one or = more registrars and then many many = registries.

So the economical incentive for = registries is to do what their registrants, via the registrars, have = interest in, which is to harmonize. ;-)

  =  Patrik

= --Apple-Mail=_D5914929-CD41-456F-A15E-2BD1ED3175E3-- From provreg@contact.dotandco.com Mon Jul 22 14:26:07 2013 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 B39FC11E80D3 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:26:07 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cxuL2A-cPM1q for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDEA11E80C5 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:26:02 -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 r6MLO1Hf023104; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:24:01 +0200 Received: (from patrick@localhost) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id r6MLO1bl023102; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:24:01 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:24:01 +0200 From: Patrick Mevzek To: "provreg@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20130722212401.GA22312@home.patoche.org> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 21:26:07 -0000 Hollenbeck, Scott 2013-07-22 15:29 > > I fully support any work that make this list shorter: > > > > > > Do you know which of those exist in I-D form, Patrik? >From what I remember when implementing them, almost none, or if an I-D existed it was outdated and not in sync with what was done really. Please note that if you see the first few lines of comment inside each Net::DRI::Protocol::EPP::Extensions::* module you see the URL or a name of PDF I used to do the implementation. One of the strength of this work is to implement so many extensions under a common umbrella. But shortening the list is a goal I'm also interested in. Please have a look also in this presentation I made in 2006: http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-future-epp-icann-brussels-ccnso-techday-201006/netdri-future-epp-icann-brussels-ccnso-techday-201006.pdf I do not think many things have changed since then (except number of extensions and TLDs supported in the toolkit), and it shows examples of overlap and unfortunate duplication. PS: if anyone wants to buy chocolate, I love chocolate :-) -- Patrick Mevzek From provreg@contact.dotandco.com Mon Jul 22 15:05:17 2013 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 53FC211E8158 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:05:17 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0M6+yFclVObh for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2D121F9A51 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:05:01 -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 r6MM302S002258; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:03:00 +0200 Received: (from patrick@localhost) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id r6MM2xKM002255; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:02:59 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:02:59 +0200 From: Patrick Mevzek To: "provreg@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20130722220259.GA22448@home.patoche.org> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20130722212401.GA22312@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130722212401.GA22312@home.patoche.org> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 22:05:17 -0000 Patrick Mevzek 2013-07-22 23:27 > Please have a look also in this presentation I made in 2006: > http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-future-epp-icann-brussels-ccnso-techday-201006/netdri-future-epp-icann-brussels-ccnso-techday-201006.pdf My bad, it was done in June 2010, not in 2006. Also, before starting any work on past extensions, I believe it would be useful (even if a little late, the good time would have been before ICANN accepted new gTLDs) to make whatever is necessary to make sure people are not creating new duplication, by purpose or just ignorance of what is happening. I do not claim to know what would be necessary for that, nor knowing if this problem has really a solution. ICANN could put some pressure on gTLD markets, but less so on ccTLD ones. For example, if I'm not mistaken, there are 2 drafts for handling specific registry phases, such as sunrise and such. Since I've not studied both of them a lot, I can not argue definitively that they could be merged completely, but from experience I'm sure there is some possible mutualisation. As stated in my presentation however the crux of the problem is not technical but economical : specifically for currently in use extensions, registries will have no incentive to switch over new ones doing the same thing even if done more "standardized", with registrars not wanting to change their existing implementation (from my ccTLD technical experience, we still see people struggling with DNSSEC in general, and specifically DNSSEC in EPP) This is my only fear in working on "unified/standardized" versions: at the end, what guarantee do we have that we have really replaced the old ones, and not just create another iteration? Obligatory XKCD on that: http://xkcd.com/927/ -- Patrick Mevzek From provreg@contact.dotandco.com Mon Jul 22 15:09:32 2013 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 0C98711E817C for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:09:32 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57YELgKV2Wpz for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A1B11E8185 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:09:26 -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 r6MM7OKb003630 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:07:24 +0200 Received: (from patrick@localhost) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id r6MM7OSn003628 for provreg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:07:24 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:07:23 +0200 From: Patrick Mevzek To: "provreg@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20130722220723.GB22448@home.patoche.org> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 22 Jul 2013 22:09:32 -0000 Patrik Fältström 2013-07-22 15:24 > I fully support any work that make this list shorter: > > Make sure to see the latest version (which is marked as developer level, but is indeed stable and used in production) : https://metacpan.org/release/PMEVZEK/Net-DRI-0.96_05 You haven even more Net::DRI::Protocol::EPP::Extensions::* cases to study :-) And more are underway, based on patches I've received. -- Patrick Mevzek From zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Mon Jul 22 18:27:33 2013 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 0955211E81CF for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:27:33 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MetVuMufdXw4 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D5E711E81C8 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:27:27 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo95e6383c) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:27:12 +0800 From: "Linlin Zhou" To: "'Hollenbeck, Scott'" , References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:27:10 +0800 Message-ID: <00a101ce8743$c0c04df0$4240e9d0$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AQHOhMKqavvb6TWw+02ZWWDe3eA/lplwsMQwgADKhHA= Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 23 Jul 2013 01:27:33 -0000 Hi Scott, We have 3 EPP extensions about domain variants and implemented them. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kong-epp-idn-variants-mapping/ > -----Original Message----- > From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Hollenbeck, Scott > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:16 PM > To: provreg@ietf.org > Subject: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group >=20 > Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any = other > EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like to = consider > non-Verisign extensions, too. >=20 > If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a = working > group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't been = documented in > the IETF. >=20 > Scott >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:58 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Francisco Obispo; Wil Tan; Gould, James > Subject: EPP extensions working group >=20 > I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and = he says > he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP = extension drafts > into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we identify the drafts in = advance, > all of which have to be in current use, and that we round up enough = people with > implementation experience to read them and confirm that what we plan = to > publish is what they implemented. >=20 > The drafts currently on my list are: >=20 > IDN Language Tag = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84idn-la= nguage-tag.pdf) > RGP Poll Mapping > = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-= info-extension.pdf) > Whois Info Extension > = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-= info-extension.pdf) > ConsoliDate Mapping > = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84consol= idate-mapping.txt) > NameStore Extension > = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84namest= ore-extension.pdf) > Low Balance Mapping > = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84low-ba= lance-mapping.pdf) >=20 > draft-obispo-epp-idn >=20 > draft-tan-epp-launchphase >=20 > If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. >=20 > Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries = and > registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read = along. >=20 > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I > dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Tue Jul 23 01:50:53 2013 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 6754611E8103 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:50:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 EmoVZ3VMZ4Pd for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7542311E813A for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1YIv-00024Q-3p; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:50:45 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:50:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: Patrick Mevzek In-Reply-To: <20130722220259.GA22448@home.patoche.org> Message-ID: References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8376DB58-96AD-4556-A2B0-042F4C0B7EC2@frobbit.se> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A12E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20130722212401.GA22312@home.patoche.org> <20130722220259.GA22448@home.patoche.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 23 Jul 2013 08:50:53 -0000 Hi Patrick You are right, the challenges on the technical side are not to much of a problem. The economical side and policies (in some cases the legal / regualatory requirements) induce far stronger drag to more harmonization in EPP. Back in 2005 (while still working for the .ch/.li ccTLD / before EPP was implemented widely) I took an effort (in CENTR) to standardize one consolidated alternative for each of those parts in EPP, that did not fit well for most (European) ccTLDs. Those were mainly the Contact object and the Transfer Logic (among other smaller issues). It was rather difficult to convince other Registries to invest time and resources into more EPP standardization. The question I got was often: "What is our incentive, if we can just make our own extensions and let the Registrars deal with it?" And on the Registrar side I often hear: "We have implemented all the extensions by now. Why should we help to make things easier to new competitors?" I don't think things have changed too much in the meantime, however I'd be more than happy to learn the opposite, i.e. that things had changed... cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Technology On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > As stated in my presentation however the crux of the problem is not > technical but economical : specifically for currently in use > extensions, registries will have no incentive to switch over new ones > doing the same thing even if done more "standardized", with registrars > not wanting to change their existing implementation > (from my ccTLD technical experience, we still see people struggling > with DNSSEC in general, and specifically DNSSEC in EPP) > > This is my only fear in working on "unified/standardized" versions: at > the end, what guarantee do we have that we have really replaced the > old ones, and not just create another iteration? > > Obligatory XKCD on that: http://xkcd.com/927/ > > -- > Patrick Mevzek > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg > From fneves@registro.br Tue Jul 23 03:43:09 2013 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 57E7711E8208 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:43:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5USj1xpPAEts for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:2::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1A911E81A5 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by clone.registro.br (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AAD69E043B; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:43:06 -0300 (BRT) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:43:06 -0300 From: Frederico A C Neves To: "provreg@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20130723104306.GA71008@registro.br> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20130722142717.GH64849@registro.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130722142717.GH64849@registro.br> Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 23 Jul 2013 10:43:09 -0000 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:27:17AM -0300, Frederico A C Neves wrote: ... > And we've two extensions used since 2010 for allocation/assignment and > reallocation/reassignment for ASNs and IP blocks. It's being used by > LACNIC and the two NIRs or the region, Nic.br and Nic.mx and it's > being used by large ISPs to automate their provisioning systems too. > > ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-asn-02.txt > ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-asn-02.txt Duplicated ref, the correct one is. ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/libepp-nicbr/draft-neves-epp-ipnetwork-02.txt Fred From jay@nzrs.net.nz Sun Jul 28 19:54:50 2013 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 5541D21F9EEB for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:54:50 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yde7xh+dqeUB for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352EB21F9E1A for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFAE74B22E4; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:54:41 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CZfxYOGBar8U; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:54:41 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.173] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 922AE4B23F8; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:54:41 +1200 (NZST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:54:44 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7367A7FD-AD76-4D5A-9C62-D122829C9F4A@nzrs.net.nz> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 29 Jul 2013 02:54:50 -0000 > Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any = other EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like = to consider non-Verisign extensions, too. Yes I agree in principle but not to most of the specific extensions = below.=20 > If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a = working group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't been = documented in the IETF. Great - that's very much needed as the IETF is in danger of becoming = irrelevant in this particular niche. > -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com]=20 > I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and = he=20 > says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP=20 > extension drafts into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we = identify=20 > the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and = that we=20 > round up enough people with implementation experience to read them and=20= > confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented. I would add the following criteria 1. Are not proprietary to a specific registry 2. Have already had significant discussion and review on the provreg = list 3. Are not patent encumbered > IDN Language Tag = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84idn-lan= guage-tag.pdf) > RGP Poll Mapping = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-i= nfo-extension.pdf) > Whois Info Extension = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84whois-i= nfo-extension.pdf) > ConsoliDate Mapping = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84consoli= date-mapping.txt) > NameStore Extension = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84namesto= re-extension.pdf) > Low Balance Mapping = (http:=E2=81=84=E2=81=84www.verisigninc.com=E2=81=84assets=E2=81=84low-bal= ance-mapping.pdf) None of which I would support for violating #2, mostly violating #1 and = probably violating #3 of my criteria above. (BTW How the hell does someone get forward slashes that are not forward = slashes into URLs?) > draft-obispo-epp-idn Yes. > draft-tan-epp-launchphase Yes. > If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. As Patrik points out, the shorter the list the better. cheers Jay >=20 > Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries = and=20 > registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read = along. >=20 > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley From JGould@verisign.com Mon Jul 29 08:28:51 2013 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 3753A21F9A1F for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:28:51 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP7moAMMwEJC for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og103.obsmtp.com (exprod6og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E987111E8111 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob103.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUfaJ9f22a5eC02cLj/OqEVjsBbyCmTl3@postini.com; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:27:54 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r6TFRke7014575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:27:46 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:27:45 -0400 From: "Gould, James" To: Jay Daley , "Hollenbeck, Scott" Thread-Topic: [provreg] EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: AQHOhMKqj1HZRvkhB0CyJNTdDlyhaZlw9MkAgApStACAAI9QAA== Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:27:44 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7367A7FD-AD76-4D5A-9C62-D122829C9F4A@nzrs.net.nz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <64F63A61E5D79E41B04AC1DA4A64B6FB@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 29 Jul 2013 15:28:51 -0000 Jay, I believe that your additional criteria might overly filter the candidate set of extensions. There are clear standard track extensions including draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-obispo-epp-idn that could go through as individual submissions as long as an AD is willing to take them based on their maturity and based on the discussions that have already occurred on the provreg list. There are a large set of extensions that have been and are in the process of being built that could be of general interest. If this working group is meant to be "short lived" and to handle initially the low hanging fruit, then certainly it could take on the extensions that are primed for standards track like draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-obispo-epp-idn. I am not sure if these two extensions alone are enough to form a working group, since they could be individual submissions. The ConsoliDate Mapping (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Econsolidate-mapping.txt) extensi= on created by Scott Hollenbeck back in 2005 for supporting synchronization of expiration dates might be of general interest and applicable for the working group even though it would violate your #1 and #2 criteria items. There is no issue with your #3 criteria item. My proposal is to focus on the following extensions: 1. draft-tan-epp-launchphase along with the dependent draft-lozano-tmch-smd 2. draft-obispo-epp-idn 3. ConsoliDate Mapping =20 Hopefully we can create a broader charter in the future to attack the set of custom extensions that are of general interest. =20 --=20 =20 JG =20 =20 James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com =20 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 7/28/13 10:54 PM, "Jay Daley" wrote: >> Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any >>other EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd like >>to consider non-Verisign extensions, too. > >Yes I agree in principle but not to most of the specific extensions >below.=20 > >> If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating a >>working group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't been >>documented in the IETF. > >Great - that's very much needed as the IETF is in danger of becoming >irrelevant in this particular niche. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] > >> I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, and >>he=20 >> says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP >> extension drafts into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we identify >> the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and that >>we=20 >> round up enough people with implementation experience to read them and >> confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented. > >I would add the following criteria > >1. Are not proprietary to a specific registry >2. Have already had significant discussion and review on the provreg list >3. Are not patent encumbered > >> IDN Language Tag >>(http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Eidn-language-tag.pdf) >> RGP Poll Mapping >>(http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Ewhois-info-extension.pdf) >> Whois Info Extension >>(http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Ewhois-info-extension.pdf) >> ConsoliDate Mapping >>(http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Econsolidate-mapping.txt) >> NameStore Extension >>(http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Enamestore-extension.pdf) >> Low Balance Mapping >>(http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Elow-balance-mapping.pdf) > >None of which I would support for violating #2, mostly violating #1 and >probably violating #3 of my criteria above. > >(BTW How the hell does someone get forward slashes that are not forward >slashes into URLs?) > >> draft-obispo-epp-idn > >Yes. > >> draft-tan-epp-launchphase > >Yes. > >> If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. > >As Patrik points out, the shorter the list the better. > >cheers >Jay > >>=20 >> Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at registries >>and=20 >> registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read along. >>=20 >> Regards, >> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY >> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. >> _______________________________________________ >> provreg mailing list >> provreg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg > > >--=20 >Jay Daley >Chief Executive >.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) >desk: +64 4 931 6977 >mobile: +64 21 678840 >linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley > >_______________________________________________ >provreg mailing list >provreg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From shollenbeck@verisign.com Mon Jul 29 08:49:59 2013 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 572E921F99E8 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:49:57 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z1LxF9z-l1o0 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E944321F9926 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUfaPE2i9G7RaM4VoTmRVu5taqeew7DUy@postini.com; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:49:45 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r6TFnccE015217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:49:38 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:49:38 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: AQHOhMKqavvb6TWw+02ZWWDe3eA/lplwsMQwgAsnjVA= Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:49:37 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492241AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 29 Jul 2013 15:49:59 -0000 SGVyZSdzIGEgc3VtbWFyeSBvZiB0aGUgYWN0aXZlIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBJLURzIEkndmUgdGhhdCBt YXkgbWVldCBQZXRlJ3MgZXhpc3RlbmNlIGFuZCB1c2UgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzOg0KDQpodHRwOi8v ZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LW9iaXNwby1lcHAtaWRuLyAoaW4gdXNlPykN Cg0KaHR0cDovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC10YW4tZXBwLWxhdW5jaHBo YXNlLyAoaW4gdXNlKQ0KDQpodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWdp ZWJlbi1lcHAta2V5cmVsYXkvIChpbiB1c2UpDQoNCmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9y Zy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtd2FuZy1lcHAtY2RuLW1hcHBpbmcvIChpbiB1c2U/KQ0KDQpodHRwOi8vZGF0 YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXhpZS1lcHAtdHJhZGVtYXJrLW1hcHBpbmcvIChp biB1c2U/KQ0KDQpJJ3ZlIG1hcmtlZCBzb21lICJpbiB1c2U/IiBiZWNhdXNlIEknbSBub3Qgc3Vy ZSBpZiB0aGV5IGFyZS4gSWYgdGhleSBhcmUsIHBsZWFzZSBzYXkgc28uDQoNCklmIFBldGUgZXZl bnR1YWxseSBsZXRzIHVzIGNvbnNpZGVyIGV4cGlyZWQgZHJhZnRzIHRoZSBwb29sIG9mIGNhbmRp ZGF0ZXMgY2FuIGJlIGluY3JlYXNlZCAobm90IGFsbCBvZiB0aGVzZSBhcmUgdmlhYmxlIGNhbmRp ZGF0ZXMsIHRob3VnaCk6DQoNCmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2Mvc2VhcmNo Lz9uYW1lPWVwcCZvbGRkcmFmdHM9b24mc29ydD0NCg0KU2NvdHQNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFs IE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBwcm92cmVnLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpw cm92cmVnLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uDQo+IEJlaGFsZiBPZiBIb2xsZW5iZWNrLCBTY290 dA0KPiBTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIEp1bHkgMjIsIDIwMTMgOToxNiBBTQ0KPiBUbzogcHJvdnJlZ0Bp ZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbcHJvdnJlZ10gRlc6IEVQUCBleHRlbnNpb25zIHdvcmtpbmcg Z3JvdXANCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBzZWUgdGhlIG5vdGUgYmVsb3cgZnJvbSBKb2huIExldmluZS4g RG9lcyBhbnlvbmUga25vdyBvZiBhbnkNCj4gb3RoZXIgRVBQIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdGhhdCBtZWV0 IHRoZSBjb25kaXRpb25zIGxhaWQgb3V0IGJ5IFBldGU/IEknZA0KPiBsaWtlIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVy IG5vbi1WZXJpc2lnbiBleHRlbnNpb25zLCB0b28uDQo+IA0KPiBJZiB0aGlzIGVmZm9ydCBpcyBz dWNjZXNzZnVsIHdlIG1heSBoYXZlIGEgYmV0dGVyIGNoYW5jZSBvZiBjcmVhdGluZyBhDQo+IHdv cmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBleHRlbnNpb25zIHRoYXQgZG9uJ3QgeWV0IGV4aXN0IG9y IGhhdmVuJ3QNCj4gYmVlbiBkb2N1bWVudGVkIGluIHRoZSBJRVRGLg0KPiANCj4gU2NvdHQNCj4g DQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBKb2huIFIgTGV2aW5l IFttYWlsdG86am9obmxAdGF1Z2guY29tXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEp1bHkgMTksIDIwMTMg NDo1OCBQTQ0KPiBUbzogSG9sbGVuYmVjaywgU2NvdHQ7IEZyYW5jaXNjbyBPYmlzcG87IFdpbCBU YW47IEdvdWxkLCBKYW1lcw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBFUFAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3Vw DQo+IA0KPiBJIHRhbGtlZCB0byBQZXRlIFJlc25pY2ssIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgSUVURiBhcHBzIGFy ZWEgQURzIHllc3RlcmRheSwgYW5kDQo+IGhlDQo+IHNheXMgaGUncyB3aWxsaW5nIHRvIHNldCB1 cCBhIHNob3J0IGxpdmVkIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgdG8gdHVybiBFUFANCj4gZXh0ZW5zaW9uIGRy YWZ0cyBpbnRvIFJGQ3MuICBUaGVyZSBhcmUgdHdvIGNvbmRpdGlvbnM6IHRoYXQgd2UgaWRlbnRp ZnkNCj4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0cyBpbiBhZHZhbmNlLCBhbGwgb2Ygd2hpY2ggaGF2ZSB0byBiZSBpbiBj dXJyZW50IHVzZSwgYW5kIHRoYXQNCj4gd2UNCj4gcm91bmQgdXAgZW5vdWdoIHBlb3BsZSB3aXRo IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgdG8gcmVhZCB0aGVtIGFuZA0KPiBjb25maXJtIHRo YXQgd2hhdCB3ZSBwbGFuIHRvIHB1Ymxpc2ggaXMgd2hhdCB0aGV5IGltcGxlbWVudGVkLg0KPiAN Cj4gVGhlIGRyYWZ0cyBjdXJyZW50bHkgb24gbXkgbGlzdCBhcmU6DQo+IA0KPiBJRE4gTGFuZ3Vh Z2UgVGFnIChodHRwOuKBhOKBhHd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbmluYy5jb23igYRhc3NldHPigYRpZG4tbGFu Z3VhZ2UtDQo+IHRhZy5wZGYpDQo+IFJHUCBQb2xsIE1hcHBpbmcgKGh0dHA64oGE4oGEd3d3LnZl cmlzaWduaW5jLmNvbeKBhGFzc2V0c+KBhHdob2lzLWluZm8tDQo+IGV4dGVuc2lvbi5wZGYpDQo+ IFdob2lzIEluZm8gRXh0ZW5zaW9uIChodHRwOuKBhOKBhHd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbmluYy5jb23igYRh c3NldHPigYR3aG9pcy1pbmZvLQ0KPiBleHRlbnNpb24ucGRmKQ0KPiBDb25zb2xpRGF0ZSBNYXBw aW5nIChodHRwOuKBhOKBhHd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbmluYy5jb23igYRhc3NldHPigYRjb25zb2xpZGF0 ZS0NCj4gbWFwcGluZy50eHQpDQo+IE5hbWVTdG9yZSBFeHRlbnNpb24gKGh0dHA64oGE4oGEd3d3 LnZlcmlzaWduaW5jLmNvbeKBhGFzc2V0c+KBhG5hbWVzdG9yZS0NCj4gZXh0ZW5zaW9uLnBkZikN Cj4gTG93IEJhbGFuY2UgTWFwcGluZyAoaHR0cDrigYTigYR3d3cudmVyaXNpZ25pbmMuY29t4oGE YXNzZXRz4oGEbG93LWJhbGFuY2UtDQo+IG1hcHBpbmcucGRmKQ0KPiANCj4gZHJhZnQtb2Jpc3Bv LWVwcC1pZG4NCj4gDQo+IGRyYWZ0LXRhbi1lcHAtbGF1bmNocGhhc2UNCj4gDQo+IElmIHRoZXJl IGFyZSBhbnkgbW9yZSB5b3UgdGhpbmsgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGFkZCwgcGxlYXNlIGxldCBtZSBrbm93 Lg0KPiANCj4gQWxzbywgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgYSBiaWcgaGVscCBpZiB5b3UgY291bGQgc3VnZ2Vz dCBwZW9wbGUgYXQgcmVnaXN0cmllcw0KPiBhbmQNCj4gcmVnaXN0cmFycyB3aG8gaGF2ZSBpbXBs ZW1lbnRlZCB0aGVzZSBzbyB3ZSBjYW4gYXNrIHRoZW0gdG8gcmVhZCBhbG9uZy4NCj4gDQo+IFJl Z2FyZHMsDQo+IEpvaG4gTGV2aW5lLCBqb2hubEB0YXVnaC5jb20sIFRhdWdoYW5ub2NrIE5ldHdv cmtzLCBUcnVtYW5zYnVyZyBOWQ0KPiAiSSBkcm9wcGVkIHRoZSB0b290aHBhc3RlIiwgc2FpZCBU b20sIGNyZXN0ZmFsbGVubHkuDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IHByb3ZyZWcgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IHByb3ZyZWdAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wcm92cmVnDQo= From keith@blacknight.com Mon Jul 29 09:47:43 2013 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 E1D6621E80A6 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:47:34 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VrNwvyXs6hbN for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nineve.blacknight.ie (nineve.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2983521F8FD8 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by nineve.blacknight.ie (Postfix, from userid 1010) id 37FD6581A0; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:46:41 +0100 (IST) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:46:41 +0100 From: Keith Gaughan To: "provreg@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20130729164641.GK5431@nineve.blacknight.ie> References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4921A0DC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20130722135712.DAE4C5A4010@merlin.blacknight.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130722135712.DAE4C5A4010@merlin.blacknight.ie> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: EPP extensions working group 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, 29 Jul 2013 16:47:43 -0000 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:40:26PM +0200, Ewout de Graaf wrote: > A standardized undelete / remove from quarantine EPP extension would > be nice. Sorry for piping up late on this. Gavin Brown and I have mentioned on the list that a standardised method for notifying registrars that the registry plans on garbage collecting unused objects would be useful. We went over methods that might be done within the contraints of the existing object mappings, but unfortunately nothing worked without breaking contraints EPP and the standardised mappings place on us. I believe that a standardised undelete / remove from quarantine extension should cover this use-case too. It would be better than the current practice of some registries that abuse RFC 3915 to implement removal from quarantine by having registrars issue requests. K. -- Keith Gaughan, Development Lead PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634 Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. 12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845 From jay@nzrs.net.nz Mon Jul 29 14:40:21 2013 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 BDD7621F972C for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:40:21 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IVC+R0llfc24 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E963721F9829 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CE84B2433; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:40:13 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQAri28PuOwq; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:40:13 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.22.173] (unknown [202.46.183.35]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BCC74B2357; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:40:13 +1200 (NZST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:40:14 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> References: To: "Gould, James" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 29 Jul 2013 21:40:21 -0000 On 30/07/2013, at 3:27 AM, "Gould, James" wrote: > Jay, >=20 > I believe that your additional criteria might overly filter the = candidate > set of extensions. There are clear standard track extensions = including > draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-obispo-epp-idn that could go = through > as individual submissions as long as an AD is willing to take them = based > on their maturity and based on the discussions that have already = occurred > on the provreg list. There are a large set of extensions that have = been > and are in the process of being built that could be of general = interest. > If this working group is meant to be "short lived" and to handle = initially > the low hanging fruit, then certainly it could take on the extensions = that > are primed for standards track like draft-tan-epp-launchphase and > draft-obispo-epp-idn. I am not sure if these two extensions alone are > enough to form a working group, since they could be individual > submissions. =20 As I understood it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, this is = a two-step process. Step one is to prove the efficacy of the WG by = taking some already well developed ideas through to conclusion and step = two is then for a longer term WG to take a more strategic approach of = creating standards where we would otherwise be doing things in different = ways. I don't think it takes a long list to achieve step one but what is does = take is engagement of the community interested in this and to me that = will not be achievable, and may in fact be damaged, by starting with = drafts that are proprietary and have not been discussed much. If the list needs broadening then something like epp-keyrelay would be a = better third candidate. cheers Jay > The ConsoliDate Mapping > (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Econsolidate-mapping.txt) = extension > created by Scott Hollenbeck back in 2005 for supporting = synchronization of > expiration dates might be of general interest and applicable for the > working group even though it would violate your #1 and #2 criteria = items. > There is no issue with your #3 criteria item. My proposal is to focus = on > the following extensions: >=20 > 1. draft-tan-epp-launchphase along with the dependent = draft-lozano-tmch-smd > 2. draft-obispo-epp-idn > 3. ConsoliDate Mapping >=20 > Hopefully we can create a broader charter in the future to attack the = set > of custom extensions that are of general interest. >=20 > --=20 >=20 > JG >=20 >=20 >=20 > James Gould > Principal Software Engineer > jgould@verisign.com >=20 > 703-948-3271 (Office) > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > VerisignInc.com >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 7/28/13 10:54 PM, "Jay Daley" wrote: >=20 >>> Please see the note below from John Levine. Does anyone know of any >>> other EPP extensions that meet the conditions laid out by Pete? I'd = like >>> to consider non-Verisign extensions, too. >>=20 >> Yes I agree in principle but not to most of the specific extensions >> below.=20 >>=20 >>> If this effort is successful we may have a better chance of creating = a >>> working group to develop extensions that don't yet exist or haven't = been >>> documented in the IETF. >>=20 >> Great - that's very much needed as the IETF is in danger of becoming >> irrelevant in this particular niche. >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] >>=20 >>> I talked to Pete Resnick, one of the IETF apps area ADs yesterday, = and >>> he=20 >>> says he's willing to set up a short lived working group to turn EPP >>> extension drafts into RFCs. There are two conditions: that we = identify >>> the drafts in advance, all of which have to be in current use, and = that >>> we=20 >>> round up enough people with implementation experience to read them = and >>> confirm that what we plan to publish is what they implemented. >>=20 >> I would add the following criteria >>=20 >> 1. Are not proprietary to a specific registry >> 2. Have already had significant discussion and review on the provreg = list >> 3. Are not patent encumbered >>=20 >>> IDN Language Tag >>> (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Eidn-language-tag.pdf) >>> RGP Poll Mapping >>> (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Ewhois-info-extension.pdf) >>> Whois Info Extension >>> (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Ewhois-info-extension.pdf) >>> ConsoliDate Mapping >>> (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Econsolidate-mapping.txt) >>> NameStore Extension >>> (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Enamestore-extension.pdf) >>> Low Balance Mapping >>> (http:=8E=8Ewww.verisigninc.com=8Eassets=8Elow-balance-mapping.pdf) >>=20 >> None of which I would support for violating #2, mostly violating #1 = and >> probably violating #3 of my criteria above. >>=20 >> (BTW How the hell does someone get forward slashes that are not = forward >> slashes into URLs?) >>=20 >>> draft-obispo-epp-idn >>=20 >> Yes. >>=20 >>> draft-tan-epp-launchphase >>=20 >> Yes. >>=20 >>> If there are any more you think we should add, please let me know. >>=20 >> As Patrik points out, the shorter the list the better. >>=20 >> cheers >> Jay >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Also, it would be a big help if you could suggest people at = registries >>> and=20 >>> registrars who have implemented these so we can ask them to read = along. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY >>> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> provreg mailing list >>> provreg@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Jay Daley >> Chief Executive >> .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) >> desk: +64 4 931 6977 >> mobile: +64 21 678840 >> linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> provreg mailing list >> provreg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg >=20 --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley From shollenbeck@verisign.com Tue Jul 30 01:04:07 2013 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 CE3EE21E80DD for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:04:05 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8APckkH8lyge for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og101.obsmtp.com (exprod6og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9204221E80DC for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob101.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUfdzRiXwgVtVKf7noeRc+fDKQmX4PMCA@postini.com; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:03:22 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r6U83HGe008492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:03:17 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:03:17 -0400 From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: Jay Daley Thread-Topic: [provreg] EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: AQHOjKQ1avvb6TWw+02ZWWDe3eA/lpl82e9g Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:03:16 +0000 Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> 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 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 30 Jul 2013 08:04:07 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Daley [mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz] > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:40 PM > To: Gould, James > Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; provreg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group >=20 > On 30/07/2013, at 3:27 AM, "Gould, James" wrote: >=20 > > Jay, > > > > I believe that your additional criteria might overly filter the > candidate > > set of extensions. There are clear standard track extensions > including > > draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-obispo-epp-idn that could go > through > > as individual submissions as long as an AD is willing to take them > based > > on their maturity and based on the discussions that have already > occurred > > on the provreg list. There are a large set of extensions that have > been > > and are in the process of being built that could be of general > interest. > > If this working group is meant to be "short lived" and to handle > initially > > the low hanging fruit, then certainly it could take on the extensions > that > > are primed for standards track like draft-tan-epp-launchphase and > > draft-obispo-epp-idn. I am not sure if these two extensions alone > are > > enough to form a working group, since they could be individual > > submissions. >=20 > As I understood it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, this is > a two-step process. Step one is to prove the efficacy of the WG by > taking some already well developed ideas through to conclusion and step > two is then for a longer term WG to take a more strategic approach of > creating standards where we would otherwise be doing things in > different ways. >=20 > I don't think it takes a long list to achieve step one but what is does > take is engagement of the community interested in this and to me that > will not be achievable, and may in fact be damaged, by starting with > drafts that are proprietary and have not been discussed much. Something to consider: documents that are currently proprietary or otherwis= e not in I-D format may well have been implemented and used far more broadl= y than those that exist as I-Ds. If there is a commitment to release the sp= ecification(s) to the community they may be worth considering. As of right now this is only a one-step process. Pete hasn't agreed to a se= cond step. I think you're right about the goal of the first step. Scott From jay@nzrs.net.nz Tue Jul 30 02:44:52 2013 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 58AA521F9C40 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:44:52 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1FFuyOtWKCrm for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CB921F8B35 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5C84B23FC; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:44:46 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61IIMwvs1Hsb; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:44:46 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.230] (121-74-100-115.telstraclear.net [121.74.100.115]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A397E4B22B0; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:44:46 +1200 (NZST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:44:47 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 30 Jul 2013 09:44:52 -0000 On 30/07/2013, at 8:03 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" = wrote: > Something to consider: documents that are currently proprietary or = otherwise not in I-D format may well have been implemented and used far = more broadly than those that exist as I-Ds. If there is a commitment to = release the specification(s) to the community they may be worth = considering. If there are those out there then I would not object to those. I = probably wasn't clear enough that I meant to exclude drafts that are for = a proprietary purpose rather than proprietary technology as the aim = should be widespread adoption. Jay --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley From jay@nzrs.net.nz Tue Jul 30 03:35:36 2013 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 2440811E81D7 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:35:36 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkbfXOji+Gwz for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (srsomail.nzrs.net.nz [202.46.183.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7306C21F9B3F for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAB64B2452; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:35:25 +1200 (NZST) Received: from srsomail.nzrs.net.nz ([202.46.183.22]) by localhost (srsomail.office.nzrs.net.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vKF94GpQHUWh; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:35:24 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.230] (121-74-100-115.telstraclear.net [121.74.100.115]) (Authenticated sender: jay) by srsomail.nzrs.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B36C4B2449; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:35:24 +1200 (NZST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Jay Daley In-Reply-To: <51E7A9A3.6050807@sidn.nl> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:35:25 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9FA95FD7-7129-4F6C-A1C9-ECF77B0DFB09@nzrs.net.nz> References: <20130711114702.10258.39846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51E7A9A3.6050807@sidn.nl> To: Antoin Verschuren X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] New Version Notification for draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:35:36 -0000 On 18/07/2013, at 8:38 PM, Antoin Verschuren = wrote: > I would like to solicit for your remarks and support for this draft. > A simple "I like it now" or "go ahead" for the documentation of our > running code would give us a good indication if the document is mature > enough to ask the AD for adoption. Apologies for coming late to this. =20 While I generally support the draft there is one key element that I = would recommend changing, which is to rename the command to "relay" and = make the key data that is relayed the only allowed data for this command = at the moment. I do not think the details of the draft would need to = change to accommodate this. My reasoning for this is that other EPP commands are generic verbs that = work with multiple different data sets in different types of registry. = For example the EPP "create" command is reused for creating domains, = hosts and contacts. "keyrelay" by contrast is a combination of the verb and the data that is = to be applied. While there are no uses currently identified it is = obvious to me that other data could sensibly be relayed and a generic = "relay" verb would allow that new development. =20 The wording in the draft is very good at identifying just what a new = "relay" command is all about: This new category of EPP commands can best be described as=09 "communication command" as it only facilitates communication of = data=09 between two EPP clients without changing any objects at the = registry. Rather than a category, a single command is sufficient. cheers Jay >=20 >=20 >=20 > (For those interested to read Dutch: > = http://www.sidnlabs.nl/uploads/tx_sidnpublications/wp_2013_EPP-keyrelay_v1= .pdf > = http://www.ispam.nl/archives/33851/eerste-geautomatiseerde-dnssec-domeinna= am-verhuizing-ter-wereld/#more-33851 > = http://nieuws.mijndomein.nl/2013/07/17/mijndomein-schrijft-geschiedenis-se= cure-dnssec-verhuizing/ > ) >=20 > - -------- Origineel bericht -------- > Onderwerp: New Version Notification for = draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt > Datum: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:47:02 -0700 > Van: > Aan: M. Groeneweg , R. (Miek) Gieben > , Antoin Verschuren , Rik > Ribbers >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt > has been successfully submitted by R. (Miek) Gieben and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay > Revision: 03 > Title: Key Relay Mapping for the Extensible = Provisioning Protocol > Creation date: 2013-07-11 > Group: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 13 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03.txt > Status: = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-gieben-epp-keyrelay-03 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > extension mapping for the purpose of relaying DNSSEC key material > from one DNS operator to another, by using the administrative > registration channel through the registrant, registrar and registry. > The mapping introduces "" as a new command in EPP. >=20 > This command will help facilitate changing the DNS operator of a > domain while keeping the DNSSEC chain of trust intact. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 >=20 > - --=20 > Antoin Verschuren >=20 > Technical Policy Advisor SIDN > Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands >=20 > P: +31 26 3525500 M: +31 6 23368970 > Mailto: antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl > XMPP: antoin.verschuren@jabber.sidn.nl > HTTP://www.sidn.nl/ >=20 >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >=20 > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR56mYAAoJEDqHrM883AgnflMH/3cGU2AxhNGb4w2QZGG40Fal > V5c2ZDoBMCLQ6jAps5x9AG/o73NV5wmXCB+bRX/2v0CAi8qOMvQouvuTDz5A/tK6 > aX0WSNzwh4SjGqXCuGtCBxHL/Tg2F8Afucm1NGo2Ov9JW1VRNI2NEgBhrYm8+Num > XvacvA1H81RlMoj116NOMmiHZlayLOiA3DrU6gASbgnOMoYEl5S/0Xkvupu7fRlb > yINJ5aqWzpkboor6Tmyzg0s3fMmlIhLYEMbOzjGNJhbPhAgqKDz/sqvr6UagGrIt > lI5YBxTNlQL7CyyvG+YTX8yaszKW5WHAhIbgbPY0lh9tV91Yw6D4lveA7VQ+1uo=3D > =3DZqJR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley From chris@ausregistry.com.au Tue Jul 30 08:28:26 2013 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 9761B21E8100 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:28:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 GZVEby7aMuix for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.ausregistry.net.au (mx01.ausregistry.net.au [120.29.249.162]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD21D21E8082 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown (HELO OFFEX01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.30.220.61]) by iron01.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 01:27:56 +1000 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local (10.30.1.3) by OFFEX01.ausregistrygroup.local (10.30.220.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:28:22 +1000 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:28:22 +1000 From: Chris Wright To: Jay Daley , "Hollenbeck, Scott" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:28:17 +1000 Thread-Topic: [provreg] EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: Ac6NCXXezCE+kND/STOB20G4kyiHywAL7/tw Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 30 Jul 2013 15:28:26 -0000 AusRegistry has many EPP extensions for various purposes none of which have= ever really been posted as drafts (to the IETF) - if there was to be an ef= fort try to standardise all these things we would very much be interested i= n submitting relevant ones for consideration. Thanks Chris -----Original Message----- From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Jay Daley Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013 7:45 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group On 30/07/2013, at 8:03 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" w= rote: > Something to consider: documents that are currently proprietary or otherw= ise not in I-D format may well have been implemented and used far more broa= dly than those that exist as I-Ds. If there is a commitment to release the = specification(s) to the community they may be worth considering. If there are those out there then I would not object to those. I probably = wasn't clear enough that I meant to exclude drafts that are for a proprieta= ry purpose rather than proprietary technology as the aim should be widespre= ad adoption. Jay --=20 Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list provreg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From paf@frobbit.se Tue Jul 30 15:33:38 2013 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 93AEE21E80B4 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:33:38 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 PbX2A43Lvs+t for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D8311E80E2 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.254.3] (dhcp-4536.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.69.54]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24A7D23FC5; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:33:34 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:33:33 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3E81D2A1-7E2A-44DD-BCA8-8121E6D0D10B@frobbit.se> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> To: Chris Wright X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 30 Jul 2013 22:33:38 -0000 Please post your extensions as internet-drafts, and other registries = should do so as well. That would be a good basis for the coordination = and collaboration I see now that I *really* think is a big step forward! Patrik On 30 jul 2013, at 17:28, Chris Wright wrote: > AusRegistry has many EPP extensions for various purposes none of which = have ever really been posted as drafts (to the IETF) - if there was to = be an effort try to standardise all these things we would very much be = interested in submitting relevant ones for consideration. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Chris >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Jay Daley > Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013 7:45 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: provreg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group >=20 >=20 > On 30/07/2013, at 8:03 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" = wrote: >=20 >> Something to consider: documents that are currently proprietary or = otherwise not in I-D format may well have been implemented and used far = more broadly than those that exist as I-Ds. If there is a commitment to = release the specification(s) to the community they may be worth = considering. >=20 > If there are those out there then I would not object to those. I = probably wasn't clear enough that I meant to exclude drafts that are for = a proprietary purpose rather than proprietary technology as the aim = should be widespread adoption. >=20 > Jay >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley > Chief Executive > .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > mobile: +64 21 678840 > linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley >=20 > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg > _______________________________________________ > provreg mailing list > provreg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From lem@isc.org Tue Jul 30 15:36:13 2013 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 54D7421E80E8 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:36:13 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 muiDeVJEoK5Z for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:36:12 -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 BD79521E80C6 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12645C94D5; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:36:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1375223772; bh=IJnIjX0IA4orZmYJQraKdSg+7Hr1XWMiByr4X5I3NMw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=g+C1VYKqSzUVJChnhaZkGv+oPYBPMRQDBB/yx4mLR4vUD3MW+ZfBkOAihhr4FYnA5 3Gm9sCjaCijGk6QxKR5nubPvEQIoS4xWVENHWU7LijhdYdN0ArdfHfUZMf2ExT/zke N1osHrdKk3UBOrvq47+LA5OqzZsjvwHAsIaCVAS8= 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 "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:36:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C018216C1E; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:35:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: <3E81D2A1-7E2A-44DD-BCA8-8121E6D0D10B@frobbit.se> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:35:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <741646F2-9CFC-4FB3-883B-88B6AB7EADE4@isc.org> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> <3E81D2A1-7E2A-44DD-BCA8-8121E6D0D10B@frobbit.se> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 30 Jul 2013 22:36:13 -0000 On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > Please post your extensions as internet-drafts, and other registries = should do so as well. That would be a good basis for the coordination = and collaboration I see now that I *really* think is a big step forward! I think this should be a requisite for all extensions to be considered = by this new WG. -lem From peter@denic.de Tue Jul 30 23:39:45 2013 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 8DF6221F9B12 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:39:45 -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=[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 S3GSFN4b5UuN for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC1021F9AC4 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de (x28.fra2.if.denic.de [10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1V4Q4V-0007Os-HR; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:39:43 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1V4Q4V-0003YR-Dv; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:39:43 +0200 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:39:43 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: provreg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130731063943.GP23086@x28.adm.denic.de> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 31 Jul 2013 06:39:45 -0000 > [...] has many EPP extensions for various purposes none of which have ever really been posted as drafts (to the IETF) - if there was to be an effort try to standardise all these things we would very much be interested in submitting relevant ones for consideration. not picking on any one in particular, but does this include the willingness to give up the change control to the IETF? -Peter From chris@ausregistry.com.au Wed Jul 31 03:15:20 2013 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 CADC121E8083 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:15:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 b5O9mET+HKQT for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx02.ausregistry.net.au (mx02.ausregistry.net.au [120.29.255.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAC321E8082 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown (HELO MELEX01.ausregistrygroup.local) ([10.11.220.61]) by iron02.off08.stkildard.vic.ausregistry.com.au with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2013 20:15:15 +1000 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local (10.30.1.3) by MELEX01.ausregistrygroup.local (10.11.220.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:15:15 +1000 Received: from off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) by off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local ([10.30.1.3]) with mapi; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:15:15 +1000 From: Chris Wright To: Peter Koch , "provreg@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:15:10 +1000 Thread-Topic: [provreg] EPP extensions working group Thread-Index: Ac6NuNLWGQXzvMTVQ2auR8BRmgJ50AAHPAgg Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12EE@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> <20130731063943.GP23086@x28.adm.denic.de> In-Reply-To: <20130731063943.GP23086@x28.adm.denic.de> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 31 Jul 2013 10:15:20 -0000 That's an interesting question... Many of our extensions are in use in the wild, and have been for years now.= They are implemented by many registrars, so changing them for the sake of = change probably wouldn't go down very well. If the goal is just to get together a catalogue of EPP extensions, maybe as= an IANA registry of some sort or not, would that be valuable enough to mee= t the goal - otherwise Im wondering, for example, if there are 4 or 5 diffe= rent IDN extensions (which Im pretty sure there is at least that) - how wou= ld we standardise? Do we design a new one from scratch using them all as in= put? Do we 'vote' on which one to use as the base? Given a lot of us have w= orking registries using our own extensions its going to be hard enough to m= ake a business case for changing as it is, obviously the registry whose ext= ension we choose to standardise to would have an advantage - so perhaps the= fairest thing to do would be to design new ones from scratch... but then t= he only motivation for implementation is that we are now all 'standardised'= and that 'perhaps' makes life easier for Registrars (although our experien= ce has been that the more difficult part for registrars is dealing with the= different business rules that are out there and the subtle but important d= ifferentiations between our systems with respect to interpretations of spec= ifications and where choices are allowed - not which piece of XML to constr= uct at the end - that actually rather trivial). Give all the difference in = the way things such as IDNs have been implemented in various registries, I = wonder if it would be even possible to standardise such things? So in short - I don't know... what are we hoping to achieve here? Thanks Chris -----Original Message----- From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Peter Koch Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013 4:40 PM To: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group > [...] has many EPP extensions for various purposes none of which have eve= r really been posted as drafts (to the IETF) - if there was to be an effort= try to standardise all these things we would very much be interested in su= bmitting relevant ones for consideration. not picking on any one in particular, but does this include the willingness= to give up the change control to the IETF? -Peter _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list provreg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From paf@frobbit.se Wed Jul 31 04:43:17 2013 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 060CF21E812D for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 LxPYF0V-wXEJ for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4444021E8108 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::8:742b:c1c4:fc5e:a58c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:8:742b:c1c4:fc5e:a58c]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BF1522008; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:43:15 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12EE@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:43:14 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7AA23892-899D-4692-962C-B6B38C3024FB@frobbit.se> References: <3E23F525-39C8-4891-B5B9-22919A1BCDB3@nzrs.net.nz> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4922517C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12E9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> <20130731063943.GP23086@x28.adm.denic.de> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB8CC60B12EE@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local> To: Chris Wright X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: Peter Koch , "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group 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, 31 Jul 2013 11:43:17 -0000 On 31 jul 2013, at 12:15, Chris Wright wrote: > so changing them for the sake of change probably wouldn't go down very = well True, but new extensions are "invented" by registrars if not every week = so every quarter. Not having them documented somewhere would be sad, and = increases the risk new extensions are invented. Whether people are interested in "merging" their extensions, and because = of that change their spec/implementation/whatever is a separate story. On the registrar side, some such changes might be received easily ("oh, = .XX is now as .XY and no longer special -- great!"") while on the = registry side that is of course more problematic. And if the "merge" = implies also registrars must change for both registries, that might also = be troublesome. MY reason for spending energy on these things are: - Get the existing extensions documented as I-Ds (can be informational = -- no change control handed over). - By having documentation as I-D minimize the risk future extensions = solving same problem is created. - Increase the likelyhood (from zero) that there will be merge between = extensions. Patrik