[regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Greetings folks! I've thrown together a repo over at GitHub to work on an EPP over HTTP draft (https://github.com/aeden/epp-over-http). I'd love to know if there are others from the community who are interested on collaborating. As a registrar, we'd love to be able to work with registries using

Re: [regext] Final review of draft-ietf-regext-org-06

Peiter, You are correct, by adding a link of a domain to O via R1, both O and R1 would have the “linked” status and R2 would have the “ok” status. The reason is that there is at least one active link (of any role) to the organization (O “linked” status), there is at least one active R1 link

Re: [regext] Final review of draft-ietf-regext-org-06

Hi Linlin, James, One thing that is still not very clear to me. (and the draft offers me no answer) Suppose a new organization O with 2 roles (R1 and R2). Status of the organization is 'ok', status of the roles are both 'ok'. Right? Then I link a domain to O via R1. Is it right that status of

Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)

Hello, On 5/22/18 14:23, Gould, James wrote: > Patrick, > > Referring to the language in the RFC is the starting point in the > discussion related to defining the problem that may or may not require a > solution.  I disagree that we should look at the various implementation > policies

Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)

Patrick, Referring to the language in the RFC is the starting point in the discussion related to defining the problem that may or may not require a solution. I disagree that we should look at the various implementation policies implemented in the wild by registries and registrars to develop

Re: [regext] IETF 101 minutes, and discussions not happening on this mailing-list

Hi Patrick, > >> Registry Mapping, Roger Carney >> Open question on boot strap for registry mapping >> Discussion about how to distribute the data and if it is public at all. >> Question if this data should be in EPP, RDAP or something else. >> Next step: make a draft, adaption > > Why is this

Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)

On Mon, May 21, 2018, at 16:15, Gould, James wrote: > The EPP greeting per RFC 5730 "identifies the services supported by the > server". The EPP login command services per RFC 5730 includes " > elements that contain URIs representing the objects to be managed during > the session" and "MAY

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02

Hi all, Other thoughts? I think it's important as document shepherd to know whether we should move on or not. Kind regards Pieter > On 21 May 2018, at 05:19, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 15:32, James Galvin wrote: >> With that, version 06 of this