Scott, Thanks for your review, and for confirming that the use case sketched in our draft is useful in the EPP context.
I'll change the wording as per your suggestions: "owner/ownership" --> "administrator/administration", and also "customer" --> "user" (a more neutral term). I'll reply to this thread with a reference to the new draft version once it is published. Rama -----Original Message----- From: Scott Hollenbeck <[email protected]> Sent: 22 May 2026 19:37 To: 'Wes Hardaker' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sat] Re: [regext] SATP usage example for extending EPP -- review requested by regext > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 9:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [regext] SATP usage example for extending EPP -- review > requested by regext > > > Greetings all, > > The SATP WG has developed a use cases document for ways in which the > Secure Asset Exchange Protocol (SATP) could be used for transferring > digital assets from one asset network to another. One such use case > includes the potential of extending EPP to handle additional > verification scenarios when transferring a domain. > > Thus, the SATP group would greatly appreciate any feedback the REGEXT > WG might have about this use case. > > Please see the following document and section 6 for details: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf. > org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dsatp-2Dusecases_&d=DwIGaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyT > cHQ&r=RoloOIrqfUTZB7-lAETzpuffqrhLq5tKY7bCVZzfdPs&m=m3De5i155-HWOl8IV3 > bIyhsjg5XPHoiXaz3MKMewFGo_1_6gSQQNDnLVUuOIwUQN&s=kgOI3_LP6y-5h9_rIYiNO > a48jVvKc0VQyQrnNmmYSJs&e= > > Thank you! > Wes and Clair (SATP chairs) [SAH] Thanks for the review request, Wes. Here's something to consider from my reading of Section 6: " including changes in domain ownership [RFC5730]". The word "ownership" doesn't appear anywhere in RFC 5730. That's deliberate, because there are registration environments in which registrants don't "own" domains in the same way that they do when they purchase tangible or virtual goods in a retail environment. It would be better to use a word like "management" or "administration". Similarly, it would be better to avoid using words like "sell", "owns", etc. when describing the relationship that a registrant has with the domain they're administering. It might be possible to sell NFTs, but the fact that not all domain names are owned by registrants and can't be sold in the same way is something that would need to be addressed in an EPP extension document. Except for that wording issue, the use case is interesting and is worth exploring. It wouldn't be difficult to associate additional information with a domain name using EPP. Scott -- sat mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
