[regext] Protocol Action: 'Organization Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-11.txt)

[The IESG]

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Organization Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)'
  (draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-11.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Registration Protocols Extensions Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Ben Campbell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org-ext/





Technical Summary

  This document describes an extension to EPP object mappings that is
  designed to support assigning an organization to any existing object
  (domain, host, contact) as well as any future objects.

Working Group Summary

  The document has received community review and is of interest to multiple
  parties, as it covers a basic need among domain name registrars and
  registries. The document has been discussed on the regext mailing list and
  various IETF meetings of the regext working group. The authors have
  addressed all comments and changes have been incorporated in the document.
  The document was updated several times during the WGLC due to several
  thorough reviews.

Document Quality

  Verisign and CNNIC have working implementations of the specification and at
  least 2 other Registry operators have plans or are interested in
  implementing the specification. All EPP XML examples have been validated
  against the XML schema provided in the drafts by the Document Shepherd.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Pieter Vandepitte, pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be
  The responsible Area Director is Adam Roach, a...@nostrum.com





RFC Editor Note

Please ensure that draft-ietf-regext-org and draft-ietf-regext-org-ext are 
published with consecutive RFC numbers (and preferably in that order).

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

[regext] Protocol Action: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-regext-org-12.txt)

[The IESG]

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping'
  (draft-ietf-regext-org-12.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Registration Protocols Extensions Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Ben Campbell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org/





Technical Summary

  This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping
  for provisioning and management of organization objects stored in a shared
  central repository.  Specified in Extensible Markup Language (XML), this
  extended mapping is applied to provide additional features required for the
  provisioning of organizations.

Working Group Summary

  The document has received community review and is of interest to multiple
  parties, as it covers a basic need among domain name registrars and
  registries. The document has been discussed on the regext mailing list and
  various IETF meetings of the regext working group. The authors have
  addressed all comments and changes have been incorporated in the document.
  The document was updated several times during the WGLC due to several
  thorough reviews.

Document Quality

  Verisign and CNNIC have working implementations of the specification and at
  least 2 other Registry operators have plans or are interested in
  implementing the specification. All EPP XML examples have been validated
  against the XML schema provided in the drafts by the Document Shepherd.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Pieter Vandepitte, pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be
  The responsible Area Director is Adam Roach, a...@nostrum.com


RFC Editor Note

Please ensure that draft-ietf-regext-org and draft-ietf-regext-org-ext are 
published with consecutive RFC numbers (and preferably in that order).

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

[regext] DOODLE: select your documents

[James Galvin]

Please take the time to select the documents you support for advancement 
in this working group.


https://doodle.com/poll/6nyguby3yr8dx9cp

Please select from 1-5 documents.

If you click once in the box a green check mark will appear.  Use this 
to indicate support for a document.  If you click twice in the box a 
yellow check mark in parentheses will appear.  You may use the yellow 
check mark to indicate support that is a lower priority than a green 
check mark.


For your convenience I have included the list of documents and their 
links below.


This selection process will remain open for 3 weeks, until 11 January 
2019.


Enjoy your holiday season!  See you all next year!

Jim


DOCUMENTS TO CONSIDER

Registry Reporting Repository
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Unavailable Domain Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/

Third Party DNS Operator to Registrar/Registry
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol/

Validate
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-validate/

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

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

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Included below is the final list of documents to be considered for 
adoption and the establishment of a milestone (date by which the 
document will be submitted for publication).  For those documents that 
are already working group documents we will only need to establish a 
milestone.


There are 21 choices.  After we select our “top 5” documents we will 
establish milestones and get to work.


Shortly you will see a Doodle poll (sorry if you don’t like the 
technology choice but it’s free, relatively easy to use, and 
straightforward to learn if you’ve never used it before).  Please take 
the time to select from 1-5 documents that meet the following criterion 
for you.


* You support the advancement of the specification onto the standards 
track.


Thanks!

Antoin and Jim


DOCUMENT LIST:

Registry Reporting Repository
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Unavailable Domain Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping/

Third Party DNS Operator to Registrar/Registry
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol/

Validate
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-validate/

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

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

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Patrick,

I want to thank you for your detailed and thorough comments.

First let me say that this working group has a small set of active 
participants, less than 10 at most and less than 5 on average.  So, 
you’re not in a minority since every voice is quite important to this 
working group.


Second, the chairs agree with all of your comments.  However, we also 
believe that the process we’re proposing will achieve the same goals 
you are seeking to achieve.  We’re just choosing to do it with less 
structure and formality, or perhaps different structure.


Every document in this group gets traction from one person, the author.  
Almost no document in this group gets traction from any kind of 
majority, i.e., only a few people are interested.  For example, the 
“fees” document got a lot of attention and a lot of support.  This 
is rare in this group.  The “org” documents got a lot of attention 
because there were concerns.  When the concerns got addressed people 
didn’t support the documents so much as they just didn’t object.  So 
it goes with most documents in this group.


We do not expect everyone to read 20+ documents and pick the 5 
“best” on their merits.  What we expect is everyone to simply select 
the 1-5 documents they happen to care about.


With that information the Chairs will consider many of the other 
criteria you mention to break what will no doubt be many ties in the 
selection process, and propose priorities for document adoption to the 
working group based on our assessment.


We could be wrong but it seems like the process we’re proposing is 
well-suited to the make-up of this working group.  If it fails then 
we’ll just try something else.


Thanks again for your attention!

Jim




On 11 Dec 2018, at 2:44, Patrick Mevzek wrote:


Hello,

Sorry to be probably again in the minority and the dissonant voice 
here, but I do not understand this:


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, at 10:49, James Galvin wrote:

The purpose of the list was to include everything that exists or that
has passed through the working group.  I have to admit it was more 
than

I expected when we created the list.

In any case, the right thing to do is simply not vote for any 
document

you do not want to move forward.


To me, this process feel completely backwards :-(

As described, it makes sense to me if:
- we have a wide community of people
- with far enough time on their hands
- to read ~20 technical documents
- compare their merits
- and finally select 5 to "promote" to push to the working group
- of course all in some specific tight deadline.

I believe we are absolutely in the opposite case and I fear the 
outcome of this process will not have the expected results.


First, I think the burden should be on the authors to at least present 
the document on the list (which is not even the case for some of 
them), in order to convince people that there is indeed a problem to 
solve (first important point) and that their solution or beginning of 
a solution makes sense. If their arguments are clear and correct, 
people would then be enthousiastic to add them as working group 
elements and work on them.


Instead by just trying to be exhaustive and let people choose among 
everything you achieve two things:
- you show each document as similar to others in term of usefulness 
that is maturity, scope of the problem, precise solution to it, etc. 
(and they are obviously not all equal on these points)
- you accept that documents are basically worked on elsewhere, never 
discussed here, and coming late (which means it may be more difficult 
to work, as a group, on them because many design choices would already 
be set in stone by then). Which has to me the very unfortunate result 
that the working group just becomes an IETF stamp for an EPP 
extension.
Even if the same people as here are working on the document elsewhere 
before presenting it here, what is then the value or added value of 
this working group, if it is basically just to make sure it fits an 
RFC structure, follows all guidelines, register what needs to be 
registered at IANA, etc. which is basically no more an engineering 
task but merely an editorial one?
This is not the only reason but I think this also explains in the very 
low participation we see and the difficulty to find editors, 
shepherds, etc. (and of course it is a vicious circle as the low 
participation here could be taken by some as an indication that they 
should work on their documents elsewhere to make progress).


Second, beside authors of course which are already motivated to do so, 
anyone may be free to promote or vote on any document of couse to be a 
working group document, but what would that mean (for the working 
group and the specific documents)?


Instead, why not do like it is done in other working groups and ask 
people to speak for a document **if and only if** they kind of 
informally pledge to work on it in some way which may mean:

- reading it, and the future other versions
- 

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

[James Galvin]

Thanks for this Jim.  I’ve removed IDN Table Mapping but I have a 
question for you.


If that document is tightly coupled with the “idnmap” document, why 
are you keeping it “active” (last updated two months ago) when the 
“idnmap” document is expired (3 years ago)?


Thanks,

Jim



On 10 Dec 2018, at 11:57, Gould, James wrote:


Jim,

The following is already a REGEXT working group document:

Verification Code
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode/

The following can be moved to the ON HOLD PENDING EXTERNAL ACTIONS 
list:


Login Security Policy (Extension of Registry Mapping)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy/

The following can be removed:

IDN Table Mapping - This draft would be needed if 
draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap progressed as a working group document.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-idn-table/

—

JG



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

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

Verisign.com 

On 12/10/18, 11:43 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" 
 wrote:


Thanks to Scott, James, and Tobias.  The updated document list is
included below.


On 7 Dec 2018, at 9:38, James Galvin wrote:

> Included below is the list of potential documents and topics 
this
> working group could adopt.  The first step in moving forward is 
to
> make sure we have a complete list.  We are asking folks to 
review this
> list and make sure we have not missed anything.  We are allowing 
one
> week for this review, until Friday 14 December 2018.  During 
this time

> please do ask questions about documents or topics.
>
> The next step will be for the working group members to indicate 
their
> top 5 choices of documents to move forward.  Recall that 5 is 
the
> maximum number of milestones suggested for us to have open at a 
time.
> If there is discussion to be had about this number please start 
a new

> email thread and we will see where it goes.
>
> We will do this with a Doodle poll.  Hopefully you are familiar 
with
> this.  We will setup each document as a choice and you’ll be 
asked
> to select up to 5 documents.  In Doodle, you can select Yes, No, 
or
> IfNeedBe.  You can use the IfNeedBe option to indicate documents 
that
> you support but not as your top 5.  We will open this Doodle 
poll
> before the Christmas holiday and leave it open through Friday, 
11

> January.  That should be plenty of time to get past holiday and
> vacation time that many folks will have during this time.
>
> Once we have an ordered list of documents we will announce 
working

> group adoption requests and we will move forward with our work.
> It’s going to be a busy year, 2019!

Registry Reporting Repository

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/

Registry Reporting Structure

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure/

Domain Fee Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-fee-report/

Registry Transaction Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-sattler-ry-transaction-report/

Registry Domain Inventory Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-inventory-report/

Registry Domain Drop Report
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-domain-drop-report

Registry Unavailable Domain Report

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/

Registry Maintenance Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/

Unhandled Namespaces
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Data Set File Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-dataset/

Login Security
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security/

Login Security Policy
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security-policy/

Federated Authentication for RDAP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid/

RDAP Partial Response

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response/

RDAP Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

RDAP Reverse Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search/

RDAP Sorting and Paging

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

Registry Data Escrow Specification
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow/

Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping

Re: [regext] Privacy and HR considerations for draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode

[Gurshabad Grover]

On 20/12/18 1:01 AM, Gould, James wrote:
> 
> Your proposed Privacy Considerations section and much of your proposed Human 
> Rights Considerations section focuses on the interface of the VSP, which is 
> out-of-scope for draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode.  The scope of 
> draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode is on the structure of the digitally 
> signed verification code, that represents proof of verification, and the 
> interface between the client (registrar) and the server (registry) to pass 
> the verification code.  The role of the VSP is defined, but the VSP interface 
> and the concrete verifications is by design left out of 
> draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode, and therefore is out-of-scope.  
>  

I think the previous thread with Andrew Newton clarifies why the Privacy
Considerations are applicable. Could you be specific as to which HR
consideration is out of scope?

As you have already noted, the role of the VSP is defined and (therefore
presumably) in the scope of the document. Since most HR considerations
relate to the VSP's role, they are also in the scope of
draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode.

Thank you.
Gurshabad



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext