Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01.txt

I posted the 01 draft that incorporates the feedback received during the WG last call. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks, — JG [cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston,

[regext] New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-dataset-00.txt

Hi, I published a new I-D on a file format for the submission and result of bulk requests (e.g., domain, host, and contact bulk operations) to a domain registry. The draft provides the building blocks for many different concrete Data Set File (DSF) types. I would like time at the next REGEXT

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

altered – “change” means “completely replace”. Scott From: Gould, James Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; 'santosh.kalsang...@impetus.co.in' <santosh.kalsang...@impetus.co.in>; 'regext@ietf.org' <regext@ietf.org> Subject

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

Scott, I believe the issue is that the only reference to in the command is under the element. I don’t believe the absence of a element of a specific type (“int” or “loc”) under indicates an implicit delete. Consider the use case: 1. Create a contact via with a single 2.

[regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees remove fee "applied" attribute default value

The draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees “applied” attribute is optional but has a default value of “immediate” defined in the XML schema. The XML parser will set the default value automatically if it is not explicitly set, so if a fee is “delayed”, the client will be forced to pass the “applied”

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-regext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt

Gustavo, Pending understanding and agreeing to the definition and purpose of the “registrar registration expiration date”, I have following feedback on the draft: Why include a synchronization feature in the draft between two independent attributes? It’s best to treat these attributes, no

Re: [regext] RDAP lookup queries for reserved or unassignable domains

org on behalf of a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:30:24PM +0000, Gould, James wrote: > It sounds like you’re attempting to morph RDDS into the SRS. Nope. >RDDS is a lookup service and the SRS is an OLTP system. A lookup > service either has the d

Re: [regext] Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service

+1 As noted in my prior post on this topic, RDAP is a lookup protocol for what exists. Logic associated with availability is beyond the scope of a lookup protocol. Considering that RDAP is a RESTful protocol, anything could be represented with it but the question is whether it should. I

Re: [regext] RDAP lookup queries for reserved or unassignable domains

It sounds like you’re attempting to morph RDDS into the SRS. RDDS is a lookup service and the SRS is an OLTP system. A lookup service either has the data or it doesn’t. Extra business logic associated with availability (variant blocking, relationship blocking, reserved domains, etc.) should

Re: [regext] Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service

om/> 2161 San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office +1 949 706 2300 x4202 fobi...@uniregistry.link On 16 Dec 2016, at 9:22, Gould, James wrote: That is one of my concerns, RDAP is a lookup protocol and not the SRS and should only return data that exists with no reasons why it does

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-02.txt: currency error handling, command wildcard

I agree that the entire check command should not fail due to passing of an incorrect domain name, currency, command, period, or phase, but instead the extension should return the fee as unable for the specific domain name with a reason. This is similar to how the availability check works,

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees

If it were client specified to set the expected behavior, then it may be better to just set a boolean “exact” attribute with a default of “false” to support the language in the draft that the passed in fee can’t be less than the actual fee and when set to “true” the passed in and actual fee

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees

Alex, The availability of the domain name and the availability of the fee information can be separate. Consider the use case where a client does a check for an existing domain name (e.g., “existing-domain.example”), where the availability check returns “false” but the fee extension could

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-02 : autoRenewPeriod and delete response

Inclusion of grace period credits is timed based (logic executed at the time of the delete) and is much more involved than returning the applicable prices. The extension of the availability check command in draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-02 is already far beyond what is reasonable for an

Re: [regext] Reseller Object vs Generic Organization Object

Scott, To turn the reseller object into a general organization, it would entail doing the following: 1. Change the name as you noted from Reseller to Organization for the object (draft-ietf-regext-reseller to draft-ietf-regext-org or draft-ietf-regext-genorg) and to the command

Re: [regext] EPP extension to take in generic key value pairs

Hi, We created a key / value pair extension called the “Common Object Attribute (COA) Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)” that was registered in the EPP Extensions Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/epp-extensions.xhtml ). Use of COA has been

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-01.txt

Niels comment in Chicago was related to the reseller drafts. Neils, if you have proposed text to add to draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode, please share it publically or privately. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-01.txt

the complexity and use and balance correctly, please share your thoughts. Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 2:26 PM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-r

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-01.txt

In review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-01, I have the following feedback. From a high-level, I believe that draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-01 does not match the target of Option C presented by Gavin Brown at IETF-97 (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-regext-9.pdf ), which

Re: [regext] Working Session @ IETF 98

Antoin, I’m willing to help facilitate or participate in the reseller drafts (draft-ietf-regext-reseller and draft-ietf-regext-reseller-ext) sub-group; although the draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees sub-group is a high priority for me. You may be able to split it based on EPP based sub-groups and

Re: [regext] Call for agenda items/preliminary agenda IETF 98

I would also like a chance to present draft-gould-regext-dataset. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 3/3/17, 8:32 AM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton"

Re: [regext] Working group action required on draft-ietf-regext-reseller-ext-01.txt

I believe that “Option 1: A dedicated reseller object” is the best route to go. I get the idea of creating a generic organization, but you need to consider the problem being considered and the difference of a registrar from a reseller. 1. A registrar (direct customer) has a direct

Re: [regext] Contact Postal Info Elements Proposal

behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: Hello James, On 31/03/2017 16:00, Gould, James wrote: > As an action item from the REGEXT WG meeting yesterday, I’m including my > proposal for handling the EPP RFC 5733 element on an > update: > > 1.

Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-05

Adam, Thank you for the review and feedback. I provide a response to your feedback embedded below with a “JG – “ prefix. I can post draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06 once there is agreement to the set of changes. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Roger, I believe TLD level EPP policies is relevant, but is best suited for something outside of the Launch Phase or Registry Fee command-response extensions. An example policy EPP mapping is the Registry Mapping

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

> wrote: James, On 2017-08-08 16:25, Gould, James wrote: > Overall, I believe that “phase-agnostic” premium domain names is not > a model that draft-ietf-regext-launchphase is designed for or should > be designed for. I assume you mean "phase-

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 8/14/17, 8:34 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: James, On 2017-08-11 19:27, Gould, James wrote: > launch phases are not meant t

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 4/28/17, 8:48 AM, "Thomas Corte" <thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: Hello James, On 28/04/2017 14:32, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > I don’t agree that f

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

quot;regext on behalf of Thomas Corte" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: Hello James, On 2017-08-07 20:55, Gould, James wrote: > Use of the phase and sub-phase as a mechanism for clients to indicate > fee or domain grouping c

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

ot; <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: James, On 03/08/2017 18:12, Gould, James wrote: > Roger, > > I believe TLD level EPP policies is relevant, but is best suited for > something outside of the Launch Phas

Re: [regext] review draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

Jack, I’m glad that you see value in the use of draft-ietf-regext-change-poll. For a DNSSEC change of a domain, my recommendation is to leverage the domain mapping (domain info response) that would include the DNSSEC extension according to RFC 5910 and include the change poll extension with

Re: [regext] review draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

Scott, Thanks for the review and feedback. Below are my replies to the feedback prefixed with “JG-“. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 8/22/17, 7:05 AM, "regext on

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

t; wrote: James, On 2017-04-28 22:55, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > I’m sorry, I missed the existence of a reason under the command since I > thought the “avail” attribute and the reason element moved from the > command level to the object l

Re: [regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones

To support Antoin, I’m asking for those in the working group to review and provide feedback publically or privately on draft-ietf-regext-change-poll, and to let the authors know of any existing implementations or planned implementations of draft-ietf-regext-change-poll for inclusion in an

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt

Roger, Thanks for posting the updated draft, it’s getting very close. Below is my feedback to the latest version (04): 1. Section 3.1 “Client Commands” a. The list of commands needs to be updated to include the “custom” command with the “customName” attribute. The Change

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt

the next revision (maybe the last revision ☺). Thanks Roger From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 1:27 PM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt Roger, Thanks for posting the updated d

Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension

We have no desire to send reseller information to the registry due to competition concerns. We believe there is no reason for the registry to require this suite of information. Thanks, Jody Kolker From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Friday, August 25

Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension

dy.com>, James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com>, Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>, regext <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension Isn't the sponsoring registrar already available in the clID field of the object ? Rubens

Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension

a domain that the registrar does not own. I don’t believe every registry allows a registrar to perform a domain:info command for a domain that the registrar does not own. Thanks, Jody Kolker From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rube...@nic.br] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:12 AM To: Gould, James &

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

stration” availability checks from these registrars would return unavailable. I don’t think that we would want to exclude these potential registrations. Thanks Roger From: Gould, James [mailto:jgo...@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:03 AM To: Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com&g

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

et period). Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:43 PM To: Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com>; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, I don’t

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

recasting of client desire. I do want to sort of retract my presumption from my previous email to the list. There are registrars that did not implement draft-ietf-regext-launchphase, but the link to fee is really not appropriate. Thanks Roger From: Gould, James [mailto:jgo...@verisign.com] Se

Re: [regext] Preliminary agenda

Antoin, I believe it’s best to knock off the update session first and then spend as much time as we can in the working session. — JG [id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

[regext] Request for Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token

This was discussed at the regext WG meeting at IETF-100. — JG [id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com ___

[regext] Request for Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

This was discussed at the regext WG meeting at IETF-100. — JG [id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com ___

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

Pat, The classification () is an object-level attribute as defined in section 3.7 (Classification of Objects), so the should be placed under the instead of the element. Placing it under the is redundant and can add confusion and complexity if the server does not treat it as an

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

hat they are all priced the same. Which is precisely why I had suggested labeling fees as standard vs non-standard originally. Thanks, -Pat On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:14 PM Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote: Pat, The classification () is an object-level

Re: [regext] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

Spencer, Thank you for the review and comment. I respond to your feedback below. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 11/29/17, 7:48 PM, "Spencer Dawkins"

Re: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

gt; wrote: Thanks for your quick response. Please see inline: Thanks! Ben. > On Nov 29, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> wrote: > > Ben, > > Thank you for the review. I include the responses to your fe

Re: [regext] org extensions for transfer requirement

Linlin, What was discussed was leveraging the organization drafts to provide registrar information in support of transfers. The EPP auth info value that is validated by the Registry is currently a single authentication factor in performing a transfer, while the second authentication factor

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

side (since registrars as well as registries seem tob e fairly happy with draft version -06 or -07 anyways). Best, Alex Von: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Gould, James Gesendet: Montag, 20. November 2017 22:21 An: Pat Moroney <pmoro...@name.com> Cc: Andreas Huber &l

Re: [regext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

Ben, Thank you for the review. I include the responses to your feedback embedded below. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 11/29/17, 12:30 PM, "Ben Campbell"

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

etf.org" <regext-cha...@ietf.org>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT) OK, but there's no way to identify "no validation data" and that's confusing to

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT) Is there a reason you can't say that in the document? -Ekr On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com&

Re: [regext] Request for Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

Patrick, Sorry again about the long delay in my review of your feedback. Thank you for doing the detailed review. I include my responses to your feedback embedded below. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

Re: [regext] Request for Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token

Patrick, Sorry about the long delay in my review of your feedback. Thank you for doing the detailed review. From a high-level, I need to discuss the extension of the info command / response with Kal. I include my responses to your feedback embedded below. — JG James Gould

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 11/20/17, 10:43 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 00:39, Gould, James wr

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

tes in the check response, with "standard" could be assumed as default and therefore optional, but mandatory if non-standard (premium, promotion, etc.). Another solution would be to not transmit standard fees in the fee extension at all. Thanks, Andreas

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

...@ietf.org>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT) On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote: Eric, T

Re: [regext] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06

lvestrand.no> wrote: Den 06. des. 2017 20:18, skrev Gould, James: > Harald, > > Thank you for your review and feedback, below are my answers to your feedback. > Thanks for the quick response! Deleting all below where you said "yes, we'll do that&q

Re: [regext] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06

Harald, Thank you for your review and feedback, below are my answers to your feedback. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 12/6/17, 9:07 AM, "Harald Alvestrand"

Re: [regext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

Mirja, I believe changing the “must” to a “MUST” in that sentence makes sense. Adam, does this need to be added to the normative statement change list for the Chairs? — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

etf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT) On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote: Eric, My replies are included b

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-05.txt

Linlin, In doing my review and validating all of the sample XML of draft-ietf-regext-org-05, I found the following: 1. Remove the double period (“…transfer status information..”) in the last sentence of section 4.1 “EPP Query Commands”. 2. In section 4.1.2 “EPP Command”, it may be

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-05.txt

Linlin, In doing my review and validating all of the sample XML of draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-05, I found the following. All of the sample XML in draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-05 did validate successfully. 1. Remove the link reference to RFC5731 in the abstract. Running idnits results in

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

Hi, In reviewing the draft-ietf-regext-org-ext changes in draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-03, I found the following issues: 1. In section 3. “Object Attributes”, I would revise the sentence “This extension adds additional elements to the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731].” to “This extension

Re: [regext] 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: 1. 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 3.5.”. 2. In

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-04.txt

Hi, In reviewing the draft-ietf-regext-org changes in draft-ietf-regext-org-04, I have the following feedback: 1. The description of the element in 4.2.1 should be “One or more elements that contain the role statuses” instead of “Zero or more elements that contains the role type”. I

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

want a change in the existing document or you want a new work item for the working group? What would you propose? What do others think? Antoin and Jim On 23 Apr 2018, at 9:27, Gould, James wrote: Patrick, This may be an excellent topic for a working session at the next IETF. It wou

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

Patrick, I believe the goal here is to discuss the protocol itself and not deal with the registry or registrar policies that conflict with it. The EPP greeting per RFC 5730 "identifies the services supported by the server". The EPP login command services per RFC 5730 includes " elements

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

Pieter, Thanks for doing the detailed review. I’ll let Linlin comment on the proposed wording changes. I have feedback on some of the items below: === 3.4. Organization Status Values I think you forgot to specify that

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

t; <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote: 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 includ

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] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Anthony, I reviewed your draft. We implemented EPP over HTTP a while back, where HTTP was treated as transport in line with EPP over TCP (RFC 5734). It was shut down when it became clear that EPP over TCP was the preferred option. The difference with your draft and our implementation is

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

to why, when and how to set this in a BCP? - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 Op 24 mei 2018, om 15:30 heeft Gould, James

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

ek" wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 17:13, Gould, James wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 09:26, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: > > I follow the concerns of Patrick, > > > > I'm neither a fan of the [LOGI

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 17:11, Gould, James wrote: > JG - The reason for a '[LOGIN-SECURITY]' constant value in RFC 5730 [..] Yes, but my comment was both to propose other values than this string and even alternate mechanisms. Please have a look and let me know. >

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 19:56, Gould, James wrote: > 4. I don’t recommend directly referencing the > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 elements, since it adds a direct > dependency to inclusion of the contact XML schema and namespace for a > subset of the eleme

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

, but it is a factor to consider. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/9/18, 2:03 AM, "Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, at 14:21, Go

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

risigninc.com/> On 6/9/18, 2:26 AM, "Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, at 15:02, Gould, James wrote: > JG - I don't view the 8 minimum as a "sacred cow" that would require the > next iteration of the extension to increase it. It was 6 befor

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-gould-carney-regext-registry-00.txt

Patrick, Thank you for your review and feedback. My comments are embedded below. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 6/9/18, 3:39 AM, "Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

Scott & Gavin, Thanks for weighing in. I can make Scott's proposed text and schema change with the appropriate . Thanks Patrick for bringing up the topic. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

-- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be On 06/06/18 14:22, "regext on behalf of Gould, James" wrote: Patrick, The base EPP protocol is defined using epp and eppcom, where extensions (object or command /

Re: [regext] Preliminary agenda items for IETF 102 Montreal

Antoin, I would like to add an agenda item to introduce and discuss the new Login Security EPP Extension. Jim Sent from my iPhone On Jun 8, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Antoin Verschuren mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> wrote: Hi all, Below you find our preliminary agenda for Montreal. We still have some time

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

<http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/13/18, 6:45 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 19:43, Gould, James wrote: > In thinking about decreasing the minimum from 8 to 1, I have a concern > that we're going to support a

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

://verisigninc.com/> On 6/13/18, 6:48 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 21:57, Gould, James wrote: > Patrick, > > > > > JG - Thanks, I'll take a closer look at

Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter

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 -

[regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-01.txt

Hi, I posted draft-gould-regext-login-security-01 that incorporates the change to the password minimum length discussed on the list. Let me know if you have any additional feedback. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way

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

Martin, This approach looks good to me. It has the advantage of providing the unhandled information in an element that is meant for machine processing instead of using the element that’s meant is meant to be human readable. The other advantage is that the contents of the element is not

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

urity Considerations section of the draft. Let me know if this will work. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/11/18, 10:00 AM, "Gould, James&quo

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

gineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/9/18, 2:26 AM, "Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, at 15:02, Gould, James wrote: > JG - I don't view the 8 minimum as a "

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-gould-carney-regext-registry-00.txt

To add to Roger’s note about the Registry Mapping, I posted the Launch Phase Policy Extension (draft-gould-regext-launch-policy). This is the first Registry Mapping command / response extension that defines the policies (MAYs,

Re: [regext] Preparing for Montreal

Antoin, I can lead the second work session. Jim Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Antoin Verschuren mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> wrote: Dear all, We have requested a 2 hour work session, and a 1 hour working group meeting slot. Roger: Excelent topics, but we need somebody to lead

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

:32 AM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 22:30, Gould, James wrote: > The Login Security Extension (draft-gould-regext-login-security) was > posted > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-login-security

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt

Patrick and Pieter, Thanks for your review of the extension and your feedback. I include comments to the feedback below. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 6/5/18,

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

> And while I can understand James argument and design I think we are making > things over complex without direct benefit, for what I understood the only > use case applicable on the table is "storing reseller data in registry > database (and maybe showing it in whois)". > For such a simple

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

ion being that I’ve seen that term used more in wishful presentations than privacyproxy. - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 Op 25 mei 2018, om 20:27 heeft Gould, James

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Roger, I preparation for the Interim Meeting, I did a deeper dive into the Validate draft, and I have the following feedback: 1. I don’t see the purpose of the element in the check command. Initially, I thought the may support a list within a list (e.g., ), but that is not the case.

Re: [regext] Request for Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-regext-change-poll

of the object after creation in the "after" state poll message. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 1/3/18, 7:06 PM, "regext on behalf of Patric

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >