Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

2018-01-13 Thread Patrick Mevzek 
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, at 21:51, Roger D Carney wrote:
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> We held an interim meeting today January 10, 2018 and discussed the Fee 
> document.

Thanks Roger for the summary.

> We did not make it to discussing the Registry Mapping, we will plan to 
> have a follow-up meeting to introduce and discuss this topic.

AFAIR this point has not been discussed on the mailing-list.
Could it start there maybe first?

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek

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

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

2018-01-13 Thread Patrick Mevzek 


On Tue, Jan 9, 2018, at 16:32, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> And, anyway, my first use case was only for the root but I don't see
> the point of hardwiring this specificity in the draft

AFAIK there is no (not yet?) IANA EPP server to which TLD operators are clients,
so how would they use the extension to signal to the root to have one TLD being 
a DNAME
to another?

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek

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

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

2018-01-13 Thread Patrick Mevzek 
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018, at 14:51, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 08:01:02PM +0100,
>  Patrick Mevzek  wrote 
>  a message of 77 lines which said:
> 
> > as soon as we add one RR through EPP, as James stated there is the
> > question about all others.
> 
> Yes, and I clearly do not want to go into that: too complicated for
> me.

Have you seen draft-ietf-dnsop-aname?

Seems to be closely related in the sense that it could be as useful to have
DNAME as to have ANAME (of course the difference is that one already exists
the other not yet or never)


> > There is even already an extension for that.  It had URN
> > http://www.verisign.com/epp/zoneMgt-1.0 and I have the code
> > implementing it in my client, but I do not find it anymore on
> > Verisign website.
> 
> It is not in the IANA EPP extensions registry either.

There are many EPP extensions in the wild not in the extensions registry.
 
> > * On issue #3 and the issue of feature discoverability per domain, I
> > do not think the EPP check command is appropriate for that. The
> > DNAME record is not an object per se in the registry data model and
> > hence no operations would apply to it.
> 
> The idea was not to use the DNAME record as the object but the domain
> name, with an extension. Something like:
> 
> example.com
>foo.bar.example.net
> 

I am not sure you could easily extend the current core EPP to do that.
AFAIR I have never seen an extension like that.
  
> > * On issue #6 I feel it not necessary for the client to explicitely signal 
> > it wants the info back for the following reasons:
> 
> I agree also.
> 
> > If you really want to signal no data in all cases, you can also
> > reply with an empty dNameTarget
> 
> Note that it is not permitted if we switch from EPP string to
> eppcom:labelType.

Except if you derive from it and/or you have a different type for update than 
for create.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek

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