Hi,
Short question: what's the purpose of an allocation token within a transfer
command (and what's the difference with authInfo code)? I understand the
purpose in case of create and I can imagine some use cases for update, but even
for update, I have my doubts.
I'm sorry if this question has
> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 9:59 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag
>
> The document editors have indicated that
I volunteer to be the document shepherd.
Thanks,
Jim
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:59 AM, 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 a Best Current
> Practice:
>
> Registration Da
Does anyone have an idea what the chances are that the org extension will
become a standard? Time frame? Big changes meanwhile likely?
We're currently evaluating whether we should implement the draft, or just
implement a custom extension...
kr.
Pieter
> On 05 Jan 2018, at 03:47, Linlin Zhou
Pieter,
A reserved domain name may be held in the live domain table and sponsored by an
internal server account, where the allocation token on a transfer request may
be used to allocate the domain name to the client. The allocation token is an
explicit credential for allocation authorization a
I made the proposal for the optional "standard" attribute with the list message
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/7E6X5xCdt3DhqL7p7CFupm9bAAY/?qid=e4f712bc8e70e4d0a458971928924651)
on the thread with Pat Moroney. The description in the proposal was " Add a
new optional “standard” bo
Thanks to James Gould for volunteering to be document shepherd!
Please folks, as Scott says, respond to this message and indicate your
support or at least no objection.
Thanks!
Antoin and Jim
On 6 Apr 2018, at 9:59, James Galvin wrote:
The document editors have indicated that the followi
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready
for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a
Proposed Standard:
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org/
Please indicate your
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready
for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a
Proposed Standard:
Organization Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org-ext/
Please
Op 13 apr. 2018, om 14:13 heeft Pieter Vandepitte
het volgende geschreven:
> Does anyone have an idea what the chances are that the org extension will
> become a standard? Time frame? Big changes meanwhile likely?
>
> We're currently evaluating whether we should implement the draft, or just
>
> -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 indicated that the follo
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
>
> -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-ext-02
>
> The document editors have indicated that the f
> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hollenbeck,
> Scott
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:48 AM
> To: 'gal...@elistx.com' ; 'regext@ietf.org'
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
>
> > -Original Message-
>
I support... but I'm also a co-author. :)
-andy
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:10 AM, James Galvin wrote:
> Thanks to James Gould for volunteering to be document shepherd!
>
> Please folks, as Scott says, respond to this message and indicate your
> support or at least no objection.
>
> Thanks!
>
> An
I support it and think it's a good idea.
Marcos
Andrew Newton --- Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag ---
De:"Andrew Newton" A:"James Galvin"
Cc:"Registration Protocols Extensions"
Fecha:vie., 13 abr. 2018 17:52Asunto:Re: [regext] WGLC:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-ta
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:59:04AM -0400, 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 a Best
> Current Practice:
>
> Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
> https
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 12:54, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> It's OK to say, "I've read the
> document and I have no concerns"! The IETF doesn't charter "lurking"
> groups, people!
FWIW and speaking just about myself, it is not that I am just lurking in the
LCs it is that I have various issues wi
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 15:09, Gould, James wrote:
> I made the proposal for the optional "standard" attribute with the list
> message
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/7E6X5xCdt3DhqL7p7CFupm9bAAY/?qid=e4f712bc8e70e4d0a458971928924651)
>
> on the thread with Pat Moroney.
Yes,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 11:05, Pieter Vandepitte wrote:
> Short question: what's the purpose of an allocation token within a
> transfer command (and what's the difference with authInfo code)? I
> understand the purpose in case of create and I can imagine some use
> cases for update, but even f
20 matches
Mail list logo
