Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter

[James Galvin]

Thanks James for the proposed list of documents to add some context 
around why the charter revision is being proposed.


The chairs are understanding that the major concern is the revision is 
too broad.  The final sentence, shown here for your convenience, seems 
to be the issue:



The working group may also, in consultation with its responsible area
director, take on work related to the operation of Internet identifier
registries, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.


The chairs and the Area Director agree with all the concerns stated.  
This is why the phrase “in consultation with its responsible area 
director” was included in the sentence above.


We are interested in other suggestions for how to modify this sentence 
to better scope our work.


The intent is to only pursue work related to the operation of Internet 
identifier registries that use the EPP and RDAP protocols.  If there is 
a better way to express this, please to help us by proposing it.


If you think that saying EPP and RDAP is itself too broad, how would you 
propose we express the work we want to do?


James’ list below is just the current list of possible work items.  
They are representative of the kind of scope we are looking to achieve.


Any help you can offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Jim




On 13 Jun 2018, at 12:03, Gould, James wrote:

Broadening the charter beyond EPP and RDAP would enable the WG to take 
on the file format drafts that relate to the domain industry and 
should involve the same REGEXT participants, which include:



  1.  Data Escrow
 *   Registry Data Escrow Specifications - 
draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow
 *   Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping - 
draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping

  2.  Bulk Data
 *   Data Set File Format - draft-gould-regext-dataset

—

JG

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

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

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

Verisign.com

From: regext  on behalf of Roger Carney 


Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:53 AM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter


Good Morning,



I was definitely not thinking of two working groups.



The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional 
suggested wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as 
determined by WG and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My 
suggestion was not to exclude, but to provide more focused wording. 
Maybe that wording is better, change the entire sentence to state: 
“The working group may also take on relevant (as determined by WG 
and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.”




Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the 
week is what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the 
motivation for this change”. Several others I think have basically 
asked the same question.




I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here 
are my thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial.




To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator 
document. At one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific 
item (our current Charter). Then over the past year some discussions 
were had on standardizing the files that registries and registrars 
share (Unavailable Names, Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) 
which lead into the discussion of standardizing the storage of these 
files and other items (reporting comes to mind). Today different 
registries have different web portals and ftp sites to get this 
information from and different registrars request the information in 
different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed that 
they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do 
not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people 
with the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG.






Thanks

Roger





-Original Message-
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM
To: Roger D Carney 
Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions 
Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter



On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney 
mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote:



Good Morning,















I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if


"...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." 
was



changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name



registration systems..."?




What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working 
groups?




-andy




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

[regext] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08

[Antoin Verschuren]

Antoin Verschuren has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the 
REGEXT working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token/

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

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-03

[James Galvin]

Reminder, there is one more week remaining in the working group last 
call for this document.


As indicated below, please do respond and indicate your support or no 
objection to publication.  This is important for this document because 
it has potential IPR associated with it.  Silence cannot be used as an 
indicate of support for publication.


Antoin and Jim



On 8 Jun 2018, at 9:32, James Galvin wrote:

The document editors have indicated that the following document is 
ready for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as 
an Informational Document:


Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension 
for Strict Bundling Registration

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration/

Please indicate your support or no objection 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, 22 June 2018.  If there are no objections the document will be 
submitted to the IESG.


Please note, this document has potential IPR associated with it.  
Please see the following link for details:


https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration

As we have done in the past, when IPR is present it is essential for 
the working group members to indicate that they do not object to the 
publication of this document.  We do need to record that the IPR has 
been considered by the working group.


During the last call the chairs are looking for a document shepherd 
for this document.  If you are interested in being the document 
shepherd please let the chairs know.  The document editors cannot be 
the document shepherd.


If you’ve never been a document shepherd before don’t worry.  
It’s a great way to understand the IETF process and your chairs 
would be delighted to help you through it.


Thanks,

Antoin and Jim
WG Co-Chairs


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

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-03

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

> -Original Message-
> From: regext  On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 9:33 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-
> registration-03
>
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready
> for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as an
> Informational Document:
>
> Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension for
> Strict Bundling Registration https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
> regext-bundling-registration/
>
> Please indicate your support or no objection for the publication of this
> document.

I support publication as long there are still operators willing to implement 
and use this extension. I have not attempted to validate the schema or examples 
(more on that below), but I do have a few comments on the document itself. In 
no particular order:

Several of the transform command descriptions say that they do not add any 
elements to the structures described in RFC 5731, but they do on to say "When 
the command has been processed successfully, the EPP  element MUST 
contain child elements as described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731].  This 
EPP  element SHOULD contain the  which contains 
 element". It would be good to include examples of these modified 
response elements.

Security Considerations: the document says (in so many words) that there's 
nothing here beyond the basic EPP considerations. I don't think I agree with 
that. For example, isn't there a risk of unintended consequences if 
transferring, modifying, or deleting one name affects an entire bundle of 
names? It might be a good idea to say something in this section to note that 
the client SHOULD know that a transform command can affect multiple domain 
names and not just the one passed as a command argument.

Schema and examples: have these been confirmed to work?

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

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07.txt

[Pieter Vandepitte]

Hi Linlin,

Thanks for updating the draft. Small issue: in 4.3 you did not specify the 
status of an org object after returning the action pending responses. I would 
add something similar like RFC 5731:

   The status of the organization object after returning this response MUST
   include "pendingCreate".  The server operator reviews the request
   offline, and informs the client of the outcome of the review either
   by queuing a service message for retrieval via the  command or
   by using an out-of-band mechanism to inform the client of the
   request.


Kind regards

-- 
Pieter Vandepitte
Product Expert
+32 16 28 49 70
www.dnsbelgium.be 
 

 
 

On 15/06/18 02:48, "regext on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" 
 wrote:


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   : Organization Extension for the Extensible 
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Authors : Linlin Zhou
  Ning Kong
  Junkai Wei
  Xiaodong Lee
  James Gould
Filename: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07.txt
Pages   : 24
Date: 2018-06-14

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


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

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

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


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

Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter

[Antoin Verschuren]

Ok, perhaps some clarification.

The broadening of the charter is not to broaden the scope of EPP or RDAP.
Both EPP and RDAP have always been protocols to serve any "internet 
infrastructure identifier registry”, be it TLD’s RIR’s, ENUM registries, 
2nd/3th/4th/.. level domain registries, so currently basically domains or IP’s 
or anything that does something DNS, but we have never limited the protocols to 
be used by any other registry that could arise and saw it fit to use it for 
their provisioning.
We have chosen this term to avoid this working group to only think of policy 
limited gTLD’s as the only usage for EPP and RDAP, which is not true. ccTLD’s, 
sTLD’s, RIR’s and ENUM registries also use EPP and/or RDAP.

The only change to the charter is that we previously had only one permitted 
extra work item of the dns-operators draft beyond EPP and RDAP protocol work, 
because we had a long milestone list that our AD wanted us to do first before 
we took on new work items. Now that our milestone list shortens, we have more 
time to take on this additional work, but as the charter proposal says, it 
should be limited to work related to the provisioning of "internet 
infrastructure identifier registries” that use EPP or RDAP, and the extra 
limitation is our AD needs to approve the topic as being in scope.

I hope this helps, and if you have a better suggestion for scoping or wording, 
we’ll be happy to hear.
We have put this proposed charter out here for formal discusion on the 
mailinglist and we will also have an item on our agenda in Montreal to discuss.

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392






Op 13 jun. 2018, om 23:39 heeft Andrew Newton  het volgende 
geschreven:

> Thanks for the clarification, Roger.
> 
> The file formats seem like appropriate work to me. That said, the
> wording of the proposed charter seemed to indicate to me there was a
> broader motivation. If there is such, it be best if it were stated.
> 
> -andy
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Roger D Carney  wrote:
>> Good Morning,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I was definitely not thinking of two working groups.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested
>> wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG
>> and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to
>> exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better,
>> change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on
>> relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP
>> protocols.”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is
>> what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for
>> this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my
>> thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At
>> one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current
>> Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing
>> the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names,
>> Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion
>> of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes
>> to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp
>> sites to get this information from and different registrars request the
>> information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed
>> that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do
>> not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with
>> the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM
>> To: Roger D Carney 
>> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions 
>> Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Good Morning,
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if
>> 
>>> "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was
>> 
>>> changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name
>> 
>>> registration systems..."?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working
>> groups?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -andy
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> regext mailing list
>> regext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>> 
> 
> ___
> regext mailing list
>