Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Maybe I’m missing something, but this draft is about validating contacts, so I don't see an issue in referring to the contact RFC. There’s no point in validating contacts, but not creating them, so the client needs to support the contact xsd anyway. Regardless of that, I’m still trying to

Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter

> -Original Message- > From: regext On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2018 1:57 AM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, at 15:51, James Galvin wrote: > > As we have discussed in at least the

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Patrick, Yes, the issue is associated with the loading of the XML schemas and validating the XML against them. There is also a potential code (library) dependency based on where the dependent XML schema (e.g., host-1.0.xsd for the domain mapping) lives. In looking at the Verisign EPP SDK,

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

It was 6 before and apparently we "need" to upgrade to 8 now. I am quite sure than in 5 years we would want to increase 8 to 10 and so on, this is purely Moore's law. So to ease future maintenance I am just saying: remove this arbitrary limit in the protocol, since it is a policy decision

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

From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:01 AM To: Patrick Mevzek ; regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gould-regext-login-security-00.txt It was 6 before and apparently we "need" to upgrade to 8 now. I am quite

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

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 15:17, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > [SAH] Jim, keep in mind that the security guidelines you mentioned are > just that – *guidelines* published by a particular entity that may or > may not be appropriate for use in different operating environments. I’d > be inclined to

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

+1. On 11/06/2018 14:49, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 15:17, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> [SAH] Jim, keep in mind that the security guidelines you mentioned are >> just that – *guidelines* published by a particular entity that may or >> may not be appropriate for use in

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, Regardless of that, I’m still trying to figure out the use of this extension. Will a client first check whether a contact can be created, then interpret the response of the check, and finally create the command. Or will the client just try to create the contact, and in case of error

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (Validate Draft)

Good Morning, I will be sending out minutes/notes of the Interim meeting later this week. I agree with what Jim proposed during the meeting and here in reference to providing ids for new/existing contacts, as well as the one to one matching of the check/response items. Just for a little

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

Hi, In thinking about decreasing the minimum from 8 to 1, I have a concern that we're going to support a minimum that is below the existing RFC 5730 of 6 characters. I believe it would be best for the Login Security Extension to at least support the existing 6 character minimum with the added

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

Works for me, Jim. Scott > -Original Message- > From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 1:44 PM > To: Gavin Brown ; Patrick Mevzek > ; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft- >

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (Validate Draft)

Thanks, Roger, It now makes much more sense to me. Kind regards Pieter -- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be [DNS_PUNT_Belgium_RGB] From: regext on behalf of Roger D Carney Date: Monday 11 June 2018 at 17:44 To: "regext@ietf.org"

Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > I tend to agree. This WG hasn't exactly been a paragon of broad engagement, > so I'm a little concerned about expanding our scope into unidentified > identifier registries without a better understanding of what that means. +1 Also,

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

Patrick, > JG - Thanks, I'll take a closer look at the PRECIS framework in RFC 7564 > and 8265. Please also look at the SASL framework (RFC4422 and RFC4616 for its PLAIN version which is basically what we have currently) : this allows to decouple authentication needs to the