As an end-user i've always liked the out-of-band registrar-initiated management of the client status.
I can see a registrar offering both in-band and out-of-band to their clients. Also, there appear to be some dangling sentences in section 2. tim On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:57 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck= [email protected]> wrote: > *From:* regext <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ulrich Wisser > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:28 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Alexander Mayrhofer <[email protected]>; Bernhard > Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Implementations of > draft-wisser-registrylock? > > > > Hi, > > > > I have made significant changes to the draft. > > Many thanks to contributions by Michael Bauland and Bernhard > Reutner-Fischer. > > > > Please find the draft at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wisser-registrylock/ > > > > And please give it a review. > > > > If your registry currently offers or will offer registry lock in the > future I would be interested to hear how this draft fits or doesn't fit > your business model. > > > > I hope you’re doing well, Ulrich! The mechanism described in the draft > isn’t one that Verisign plans to implement. We do offer a registry lock > service, but it doesn’t use EPP to avoid situations in which a compromised > registrar/sponsoring client could unlock a domain and make unauthorized > changes. We support registrar-initiated management of the client* status > values for registrar locking. > > > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
