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

On Wed, May 30, 2018, at 22:24, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > I remember a CENTR meeting where ccTLD’s tried to get consensus over if > we could harmonize EPP extensions so registrars would not have to code > differently for every TLD. > This was before EPPEXT existed. > We all thought this would

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

Op 28 mei 2018, om 22:48 heeft Patrick Mevzek het volgende geschreven: > In your quote you missed the other part which is basically: all domain names > are not under ICANN policies. I didn’t want to go in that discussion, but I’m on your side on that one. > So for all other TLDs currently

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

I asked many times who these registries are, I still fail to see broad consensus by registries to implement these extensions (I do not count silence as being "I agree" but just as "I do not care" or "I am not following these discussions, I do not know what to think about it"). Maybe they are

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

Antoin, On Mon, May 28, 2018, at 22:40, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > > On Mon, May 28, 2018, at 21:29, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > > Op 27 mei 2018, om 21:23 heeft Patrick Mevzek het > > volgende geschreven: > > > > > This is covered I think in ICANN world by section 1.4.2 of the whois > > >

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

Op 27 mei 2018, om 21:23 heeft Patrick Mevzek het volgende geschreven: > This is covered I think in ICANN world by section 1.4.2 of the whois > specification: > > "Additional data elements can be added at the end of the text format outlined > below.” Ah yes, let’s take the solution of "we

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

[p...@dotandco.com] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 3:23 PM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 On Fri, May 25, 2018, at 15:45, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > 1. I saw the need for some registries to give organizations other than > the traditional Re

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

Verschuren [i...@antoin.nl] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 5:39 PM To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 Oh, and when reviewing, I found another completely different issue, and that is with object ownership. I see a role can have

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

To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 Oh, and when reviewing, I found another completely different issue, and that is with object ownership. I see a role can have an optional parentID, but what if my organization is reseller for more than one

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

Oh, and when reviewing, I found another completely different issue, and that is with object ownership. I see a role can have an optional parentID, but what if my organization is reseller for more than one registrar within the same registry, and I want multiple reseller roles with a different

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

So my major question is: Can we still remove the elements from the organization object and only use the in the domain objects ? What would it break? Or could we at least have text that this role element can never be set by a random EPP command for an organization but is always set by the

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

Apologies for not having stepped into this discussion before. Having to reread all the treads and all changes during WGLC now the WGLC has ended I can understand Patrick’s concerns. Since I was one of the many voices changing the reseller drafts into the org drafts I will try to explain my

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

Hi Patrick, I respect your opinion and my gut feeling says it won't be used for anything else than resellers. But I might be wrong (and history tells me the odds are agains me :-)). I also respect the opinion of others and it's not up to me to assess in depth the needs of other registries, I

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

On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 13:36, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: > @Patrick, did you have time in mean time to catch up? How would you like > the draft to be changed in order to support it? I unfortunately think that I am not convinced by the use case, and I believe that the document could be an I-D

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

On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 14:05, Gould, James wrote: > I would like to understand the concern around the use of the roles. > There are cases where an organization can play multiple roles > (registrar, privacy proxy, dns provider, etc.) that helps defined what > kind of links can be made to it.

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

quot;Role Values Registry" was also disccused on the mailing list and got most people's support. Regards, Linlin zhoulin...@cnnic.cn From: Gould, James Date: 2018-05-23 20:05 To: Pieter Vandepitte; Patrick Mevzek CC: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 I wou

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

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

On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 15:32, James Galvin wrote: > With that, version 06 of this document has been published and the chairs > are declaring WGLC closed. The document is now ready for submission to > IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. Isn't that a little rushed? >From a quick

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

] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 Hi, In reviewing the draft-ietf-regext-org changes in draft-ietf-regext-org-03, I found the following issues: In section 3.2.2. “Role Status” Change “The values of role status are defined in section 3.5.” to “The values of the role status are defined in section

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

ay, April 25, 2018 at 8:29 AM To: James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com>, Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 I'm a co-author on this draft, but I did a re-read and I have the following items that nee

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

This is a reminder that this document is in working group last call. Please indicate your support for the publication of this document. If any working group member objects to the publication of this document please respond on the list by close of business everywhere, Friday, 27 April 2018.

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

.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be> > Date: 2018-04-13 22:06 > To: James Galvin <mailto:gal...@elistx.com> > CC: Registration Protocols Extensions <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 > I don't want to delay the publication, and I support it,

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

I don't want to delay the publication, and I support it, but there are still some issues/concerns Typos/errors > EPP provides two commands to retrieve domain information Should be: "EPP provides two commands to retrieve organization information". >This document does not define a mapping

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

> -Original Message- > From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:22 AM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 > > The document editors have