Re: [regext] Call for Adoption: draft-lozano-rdap-nameservers-sharing-name-01.txt

I support the adoption of the document. -- Francisco On 6/4/16, 7:41 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" wrote: >Since we only got 1 reply to this call for adoption, we would like to >restart it. > >Hopefully, everyone will recall that when we first started this group we >did say that we

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

+1 -- Francisco On 7/6/16, 11:57 AM, "regext on behalf of Roger D Carney" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of rcar...@godaddy.com> wrote: +1 From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:54 PM To

Re: [regext] RDAP referral to registrar ?

Hi Pascal, Your question is probably better suited for the gtld-t...@icann.org mailing list. Quick answer, only in the case of thin registrations there is a hard requirement. Regards, -- Francisco On 8/29/16, 11:45 AM, "regext on behalf of Pascal Bouchareine" wrote: Hello all,

Re: [regext] FW: Proposal to remove RDAP from the Thick Whois CL&D Policy (was Proposed Path Forward | Thick Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration)

his mean domain registrars do not have to implement RDAP and that domain registries have until March 4, 2017 to implement it? -andy On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > FYI, > > > > On 9/21/16, 10:41 AM,

Re: [regext] FW: Proposal to remove RDAP from the Thick Whois CL&D Policy (was Proposed Path Forward | Thick Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration)

Is there a reason being given? -andy On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Francisco Arias wrote: > The proposal is that neither registrars nor registries in the gTLD space would have to do RDAP (at least not for now). In other words, the proposal is to reverse the req

Re: [regext] Proposal to remove RDAP from the Thick Whois CL&D Policy (was Proposed Path Forward | Thick Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration)

FWIW, version 1.0 of the gTLD RDAP profile (i.e., what was requested to be implemented) can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en -- Francisco On 9/22/16, 2:40 PM, "Andrew Newton" wrote: That's a fair observation. While I am not sure I r

Re: [regext] FW: Proposal to remove RDAP from the Thick Whois CL&D Policy (was Proposed Path Forward | Thick Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration)

Jay, As far as I know, ICANN has never said it agrees with that claim. You can listen to ICANN’s presentation of the issue and proposed way forward in the latest Thick Whois Implementation Review Team in the first minutes of the recording at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/483

[regext] FW: Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy Available for Public Comment

FYI On 10/23/16, 8:35 AM, "ICANN News Alert" mailto:no-re...@external.icann.org>> wrote: News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-21-en Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy Available for Public Comment

Re: [regext] [Ext] URGENT: NOTE SCHEDULE CHANGE

Jim, The agenda changes show REGEXT moved from Wednesday at 0900 to Monday at 1520, and the Thursday slot is still there. Could you confirm which are the correct final meeting times? -- Francisco On 3/24/17, 6:41 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" wrote: Please note, the agenda cur

Re: [regext] [Ext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-02.txt

Hi Scott, I think the document should perhaps describe the problem that is being solved (one level higher). In other words, why would a RDAP use need to do an entity lookup if they don't know the registry the entity is related to. Perhaps I'm missing something, in my mind a user would want to k

Re: [regext] [Ext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-02.txt

we better provide the URI to the RDAP query for that object in the RDAP output that the user is going to see (or even let the URI be the id)? -- Francisco On 4/5/17, 10:42 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Francisco Arias [mailto

[regext] RDAP pilot for gTLDs

Colleagues, In case you haven't seen it, today we have launched an RDAP pilot program. You can see more details about it at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-05-en Regards, -- Francisco smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: FW: Proposal to remove RDAP from the Thick Whois CL&D Policy (was Proposed Path Forward | Thick Whois CL&D Policy, RDAP and RySG Request for Reconsideration)

Thank you for the suggestion, Bernhard. We'll take it into consider if the document is revived, as you said. -- Francisco On 9/12/17, 2:00 AM, "Bernhard Reutner-Fischer" wrote: On 12 October 2016 at 02:46, Francisco Arias wrote: > FYI, > > >

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: EPP and DNAME records?

I cannot speak for .cat, but looking at zone file archives for their TLD, I haven't seen DNAMES for a while. I believe they stopped using DNAMEs at some point in the past. -- Francisco On 11/13/17, 12:20 AM, "regext on behalf of Edmon Chung" wrote: We actually do not use DNAME for IDN V

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: Potential Topic for IETF-102: RDAP Search Capabilities

rkshop was focused on RDAP's search capabilities and if they were sufficient for use in the gTLD community. Francisco Arias has some thoughts on functional requirements, so I thought it might be a good idea to talk about the topic at IETF-102. Francisco has confirmed that h

[regext] Proposed gTLD-Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Profile

Colleagues, The below announcement may be of interest to you. -- Francisco On 8/31/18, 4:37 PM, "ICANN News Alert" mailto:no-re...@external.icann.org>> wrote: News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2018-08-31-en Proposed gTLD-Registration Data A

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-01 draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-01

+1 -- Francisco On 9/27/19, 6:41 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" wrote: This is a reminder to please indicate your support or comments regarding these drafts. Thanks! Antoin and Jim On 20 Sep 2019, at 9:31, James Galvin wrote: > T

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-01

+1 -- Francisco On 11/8/19, 6:29 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of i...@antoin.nl> wrote: Folks, We did not receive any response to this second WGLC. This means we cannot submit this document for publication. We wi

Re: [regext] [Ext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec

+1 -- Francisco On 2/14/20, 7:01 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" wrote: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as an Informational document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func