Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-05.txt

[Patrick Mevzek]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017, at 13:19, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> I'm just trying to find a simple way to add structure to an identifier 

I agree, but I believe we have the JSON format to encode structure and
hence putting two loosely related items in a string with some separator
goes in my mind contrary to the idea of using JSON and departing from
all errors that were made with the whois format.

If this documents the current practice then it is what it is, but I
would be sad this becomes the canonical way to do this in the future.

I understand that it is too late to change anything, but I just wanted
to voice my concerns.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-07.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the 
IETF.

Title   : Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning 
Protocol (EPP)
Authors : James Gould
  Wil Tan
  Gavin Brown
Filename: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-07.txt
Pages   : 70
Date: 2017-12-12

Abstract:
   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for the provisioning and management of domain name
   registrations and applications during the launch of a domain name
   registry.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-07


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla]

I don't really agree, but ultimately, this is a comment, so I'll leave it
up to the authors, chairs, and AD to handle.

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Gould, James  wrote:

> Eric,
>
>
>
> The concept of server policy is well known to EPP extensions, so I don’t
> believe that it warrants any additional explanation in this one.  Making
> the general statement in the introduction should cover it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> [image: id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 3:35 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *"Hollenbeck, Scott" , "
> regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-regext-
> launchph...@ietf.org" , "
> ulr...@wisser.se" , "i...@ietf.org" , "
> regext@ietf.org" 
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> I think the thing that this doesn't capture is that this *field* isn't
> optional, so you have to represent *some* policy.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
>
> I have no problem with that modification, so the result is:
>
>
>
> It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as they
> begin operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according
> to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the
> shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period.  *Multiple launch phases
> and multiple models are supported to enable the launch of a domain name
> registry.  What is supported and what is validated is up to server policy.
> Communication of the server policy is typically performed using an
> out-of-band mechanism that is not specified in this document.*
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *"Hollenbeck, Scott" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:51 PM
> *To: *James Gould , "'e...@rtfm.com'" 
> *Cc: *"'regext-cha...@ietf.org'" , "'
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org'"  launchph...@ietf.org>, "'ulr...@wisser.se'" , "'
> i...@ietf.org'" , "'regext@ietf.org'" 
> *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> When I read “Communication of the server policy is defined outside this
> document” I ask myself “Where?”. It may be better to say something like
> “Communication of the server policy is typically performed using an
> out-of-band mechanism that is not specified in this document”.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> *From:* regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gould,
> James
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:48 PM
> *To:* Eric Rescorla 
> *Cc:* regext-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org;
> Ulrich Wisser ; The IESG ;
> regext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> Ok, how about adding a few sentences to the second paragraph of the
> Introduction:
>
>
>
> It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as they
> begin operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according
> to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the
> shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period.  *Multiple launch phases
> and multiple models are supported to enable the launch of a domain name
> registry.  What is supported and what is validated is up to server policy.
> Communication of the server policy is defined outside this document.*
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:25 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> 

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla]

I think the thing that this doesn't capture is that this *field* isn't
optional, so you have to represent *some* policy.

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Gould, James  wrote:

> I have no problem with that modification, so the result is:
>
>
>
> It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as they
> begin operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according
> to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the
> shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period.  *Multiple launch phases
> and multiple models are supported to enable the launch of a domain name
> registry.  What is supported and what is validated is up to server policy.
> Communication of the server policy is typically performed using an
> out-of-band mechanism that is not specified in this document.*
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> [image: id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *"Hollenbeck, Scott" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:51 PM
> *To: *James Gould , "'e...@rtfm.com'" 
> *Cc: *"'regext-cha...@ietf.org'" , "'
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org'"  launchph...@ietf.org>, "'ulr...@wisser.se'" , "'
> i...@ietf.org'" , "'regext@ietf.org'" 
> *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> When I read “Communication of the server policy is defined outside this
> document” I ask myself “Where?”. It may be better to say something like
> “Communication of the server policy is typically performed using an
> out-of-band mechanism that is not specified in this document”.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> *From:* regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gould,
> James
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:48 PM
> *To:* Eric Rescorla 
> *Cc:* regext-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org;
> Ulrich Wisser ; The IESG ;
> regext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> Ok, how about adding a few sentences to the second paragraph of the
> Introduction:
>
>
>
> It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as they
> begin operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according
> to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the
> shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period.  *Multiple launch phases
> and multiple models are supported to enable the launch of a domain name
> registry.  What is supported and what is validated is up to server policy.
> Communication of the server policy is defined outside this document.*
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:25 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Is there a reason you can't say that in the document?
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> The extension supports multiple launch phases and multiple models to
> enable the servers to support their TLD launches.  What is supported and
> what is validated is up to server policy, is currently communicated
> out-of-band, and can be included in a separate in-band policy extension
> (e.g., draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy) created for that purpose.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:10 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> 

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

[Gould, James]

Eric,

Ok, how about adding a few sentences to the second paragraph of the 
Introduction:

It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as they begin 
operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according to special 
rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the shorter form "launch" 
to refer to such a period.  Multiple launch phases and multiple models are 
supported to enable the launch of a domain name registry.  What is supported 
and what is validated is up to server policy.  Communication of the server 
policy is defined outside this document.

Thoughts?

—

JG

[id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com

From: Eric Rescorla 
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:25 PM
To: James Gould 
Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" 
, Ulrich Wisser , 
"regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

Is there a reason you can't say that in the document?

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
Eric,

The extension supports multiple launch phases and multiple models to enable the 
servers to support their TLD launches.  What is supported and what is validated 
is up to server policy, is currently communicated out-of-band, and can be 
included in a separate in-band policy extension (e.g., 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy) created for that purpose.

Thanks,

—

JG

[cid:image002.png@01D37358.45D37A80]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont 
Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com

From: Eric Rescorla >
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:10 PM
To: James Gould >
Cc: The IESG >, 
"draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 Ulrich Wisser >, 
"regext-cha...@ietf.org" 
>, 
"regext@ietf.org" 
>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

OK, but there's no way to identify "no validation data" and that's confusing to 
the reader.

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
Eric,

>OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is currently 
>required. It confused me.

I believe attempting to add text saying that validation is required will add 
more confusion (who validates, what’s validated) and is out-of-scope for an 
extension that passes information between a client and server that may have 
been validated by a 3rd party.  The extension provides the capability of 
passing validated data but it does not require explicit validation to be 
performed.

Thanks,

—

JG

[cid:image003.png@01D37358.45D37A80]


James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont 
Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com

From: Eric Rescorla >
Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM
To: James Gould >
Cc: The IESG >, 
"draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 Ulrich Wisser >, 
"regext-cha...@ietf.org" 
>, 
"regext@ietf.org" 
>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)



On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
Eric,

In reviewing the threads, I noticed that I missed your open question “How do 
you say in the protocol that no validation is wanted.”

I’ll lead with restating that the requirement for 

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla]

Is there a reason you can't say that in the document?

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gould, James  wrote:

> Eric,
>
>
>
> The extension supports multiple launch phases and multiple models to
> enable the servers to support their TLD launches.  What is supported and
> what is validated is up to server policy, is currently communicated
> out-of-band, and can be included in a separate in-band policy extension
> (e.g., draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy) created for that purpose.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> [image: id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:10 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> OK, but there's no way to identify "no validation data" and that's
> confusing to the reader.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Gould, James  wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> >OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is
> currently required. It confused me.
>
>
>
> I believe attempting to add text saying that validation is required will
> add more confusion (who validates, what’s validated) and is out-of-scope
> for an extension that passes information between a client and server that
> may have been validated by a 3rd party.  The extension provides the
> capability of passing validated data but it does not require explicit
> validation to be performed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Monday, December 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Gould, James  wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> In reviewing the threads, I noticed that I missed your open question “How
> do you say in the protocol that no validation is wanted.”
>
>
>
> I’ll lead with restating that the requirement for validation depends on
> the launch phases used by the server and the models chosen by the server
> for those launch phases, which is referred to as server policy.  The launch
> phases and models chosen by the server is currently not defined by the
> protocol and currently needs to be communicated out-of-band.  The WG is
> going to discuss a framework (Registry Mapping and Registry Policy
> Extensions) to communicate the server policies in-band to EPP that should
> include a policy extension for draft-ietf-regext-launchphase (e.g.,
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy).  The short answer is that the
> protocol may say that no validation is wanted in the future but outside of
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase.
>
>
>
> OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is
> currently required. It confused me.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Gould, James  wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> My replies are included below.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

[Gould, James]

Eric,

The extension supports multiple launch phases and multiple models to enable the 
servers to support their TLD launches.  What is supported and what is validated 
is up to server policy, is currently communicated out-of-band, and can be 
included in a separate in-band policy extension (e.g., 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy) created for that purpose.

Thanks,

—

JG

[id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com

From: Eric Rescorla 
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:10 PM
To: James Gould 
Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" 
, Ulrich Wisser , 
"regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

OK, but there's no way to identify "no validation data" and that's confusing to 
the reader.

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
Eric,

>OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is currently 
>required. It confused me.

I believe attempting to add text saying that validation is required will add 
more confusion (who validates, what’s validated) and is out-of-scope for an 
extension that passes information between a client and server that may have 
been validated by a 3rd party.  The extension provides the capability of 
passing validated data but it does not require explicit validation to be 
performed.

Thanks,

—

JG

[cid:image002.png@01D37354.4641F090]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont 
Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com

From: Eric Rescorla >
Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM
To: James Gould >
Cc: The IESG >, 
"draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 Ulrich Wisser >, 
"regext-cha...@ietf.org" 
>, 
"regext@ietf.org" 
>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)



On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Gould, James 
> wrote:
Eric,

In reviewing the threads, I noticed that I missed your open question “How do 
you say in the protocol that no validation is wanted.”

I’ll lead with restating that the requirement for validation depends on the 
launch phases used by the server and the models chosen by the server for those 
launch phases, which is referred to as server policy.  The launch phases and 
models chosen by the server is currently not defined by the protocol and 
currently needs to be communicated out-of-band.  The WG is going to discuss a 
framework (Registry Mapping and Registry Policy Extensions) to communicate the 
server policies in-band to EPP that should include a policy extension for 
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase (e.g., draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy).  
The short answer is that the protocol may say that no validation is wanted in 
the future but outside of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase.

OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is currently 
required. It confused me.

-Ekr


Thanks,

—

JG

[cid:image003.png@01D37354.4641F090]


James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont 
Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com

From: Eric Rescorla >
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM
To: James Gould >
Cc: The IESG >, 
"draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 Ulrich Wisser >, 
"regext-cha...@ietf.org" 
>, 
"regext@ietf.org" 
>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on 

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla]

OK, but there's no way to identify "no validation data" and that's
confusing to the reader.

-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Gould, James  wrote:

> Eric,
>
>
>
> >OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is
> currently required. It confused me.
>
>
>
> I believe attempting to add text saying that validation is required will
> add more confusion (who validates, what’s validated) and is out-of-scope
> for an extension that passes information between a client and server that
> may have been validated by a 3rd party.  The extension provides the
> capability of passing validated data but it does not require explicit
> validation to be performed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> [image: id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Monday, December 11, 2017 at 6:37 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Gould, James  wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> In reviewing the threads, I noticed that I missed your open question “How
> do you say in the protocol that no validation is wanted.”
>
>
>
> I’ll lead with restating that the requirement for validation depends on
> the launch phases used by the server and the models chosen by the server
> for those launch phases, which is referred to as server policy.  The launch
> phases and models chosen by the server is currently not defined by the
> protocol and currently needs to be communicated out-of-band.  The WG is
> going to discuss a framework (Registry Mapping and Registry Policy
> Extensions) to communicate the server policies in-band to EPP that should
> include a policy extension for draft-ietf-regext-launchphase (e.g.,
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-policy).  The short answer is that the
> protocol may say that no validation is wanted in the future but outside of
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase.
>
>
>
> OK. Do you think you could add some text saying that validation is
> currently required. It confused me.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Gould, James  wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> My replies are included below.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 4:02 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: *The IESG , "draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-regext-launchph...@ietf.org>, Ulrich Wisser ,
> "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" <
> regext@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Gould, James  wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> Thanks again, I provide answers embedded below.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271 <(703)%20948-3271>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> 
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla 
> *Date: *Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:39 PM
> *To: *James Gould 
> *Cc: 

Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-05.txt

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 11:34 PM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-
> rdap-object-tag-05.txt
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017, at 14:04, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > > directories.
> > >
> > >
> > > Title   : Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
> Object
> > > Tagging
>
> One comment on the draft itself.
> While I think I can understand the need, I still feel very uneasy by the
> solution of tackling two values together by a given separator.
> In fact it shows even in the history of the document, where you had to
> change the separator multiple times.
>
> Even beside the fact that tilde looks like a dash inferior lookalike, I
> think that you would get problems whatever separator value is used. This
> shows in many sentences of the text.
>
> Were other solutions already explored?

Thanks for the comments, Patrick.

I changed the character more than once only because we were trying to find one 
that was guaranteed (more or less) to not be part of the values currently in 
use. At least one of my earlier proposals was, in fact, a collision. As noted 
in the text, the concept described in the document is already implemented by 
multiple registries and is based on current RIR practice. It's not new.

No, I didn't consider other solutions because I thought the existing RIR 
practice would work just fine because it's working just fine right now.

> Like one the following two:
> - instead of adding the service provider to the current handle, why not
> having a new RDAP attribute, like handle_provider to store only this
> value?
> - or, even more radical, having the current handle element not a string
> anymore but a dictionary/map with one or two keys, like value (mandatory,
> would be the current text in the element) and provider (optional).
>
> Obviously these 2 solutions involve schema changes so are more difficult
> to put in place, but I see them are more future-proof.

As you said, both are more radical and thus probably more than we need. I'm 
just trying to find a simple way to add structure to an identifier so that 
queries can be bootstrapped in the same way other RDAP queries can be 
bootstrapped.

Scott

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext