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

2018-05-08 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
I agree: move on, and make this discussion a new work item for the group. It was an interesting discussion by the way... My opinion: First of all, I don't know about real world examples of issues concerning unsupported extensions by one of our registrars. When we introduce new extensions,

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

2018-05-19 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi Linlin, I did a review with a magnifying glass. Some things should really be fixed (or rather MUST be fixed), some others are opinionated. I'm preparing a review of the draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-06 too, but that's for tomorrow === > 3.1

Re: [regext] IETF 101 minutes, and discussions not happening on this mailing-list

2018-05-22 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi Patrick, > >> Registry Mapping, Roger Carney >> Open question on boot strap for registry mapping >> Discussion about how to distribute the data and if it is public at all. >> Question if this data should be in EPP, RDAP or something else. >> Next step: make a draft, adaption > > Why is this

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

2018-05-22 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
eview. I am preparing the update. > > Regards, > Linlin > zhoulin...@cnnic.cn <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn> > > From: Pieter Vandepitte <mailto:pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be> > Date: 2018-05-20 04:29 > To: regext <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [regext

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

2018-05-23 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi Anthony, Exactly the same question as Patrick. As I'm not in the registrar world, but the registry world, I'm very interested in the use cases (or why) of EPP over HTTP instead of EPP over TCP. But very willing to collaborate if there's a case (not just because it is technically more fun to

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

2018-05-24 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
gt; wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 13:36, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: >> @Patrick, did you have time in mean time to catch up? How would you like >> the draft to be changed in order to support it? > > I unfortunately think that I am not convinced by the use case, and I b

[regext] Object template extension

2018-05-25 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi all, The registry I work for, developed a custom extension to manage "nameserver" groups and "keygroups". When a registrar links a group to a domain, all member nameservers/keys of that group are automatically linked to that domain. This way, it is very convenient for DNS operators to

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

2018-05-22 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi all, Other thoughts? I think it's important as document shepherd to know whether we should move on or not. Kind regards Pieter > On 21 May 2018, at 05:19, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 15:32, James Galvin wrote: >> With that, version 06 of this

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

2018-06-11 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
for better, more structured and machine interpretable responses, but I don’t think the extra check step is the way to go. Just my 2 cents… Kind regards -- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be On 06/06/18 14:22, "regext on behalf of Gould, James&qu

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

2018-06-15 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
"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

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

2018-06-11 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
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<http://www.dnsbelgium.be> [DNS_PUNT_Belgium_RGB] From: regext on behalf of Roger D Carney Date: Monday 11 June 2018 at 17:44 To: "rege

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

2018-06-14 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
I have nothing to add. Just letting know I share the same opinion. -- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be> On 14/06/18 00:45, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018,

[regext] Delegated EPP

2018-05-28 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi, As I see discussions popping up now and then of 3rd party organisations having to modify registry objects, wouldn't it be an idea to design something like delegated EPP instead of implementing new protocols? Something like: a registrar assigns a group to an object, then generates a token

Re: [regext] Object template extension

2018-05-28 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
ot a list of command to the EPP server. Kind regards Pieter > On 26 May 2018, at 04:48, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > Pieter, > > On Fri, May 25, 2018, at 21:37, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: >> The registry I work for, developed a custom extension to manage >> "namese

Re: [regext] Delegated EPP

2018-05-30 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
> delegation of epp to 3rd parties that are unknown to the registry does have > some operational implications that need to be thought through. Although I > suppose this group isnt regops. > > > On 29/5/18 6:13 am, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: >> Hi, >> >>

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

2018-06-05 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
I follow the concerns of Patrick, I'm neither a fan of the [LOGIN-SECURITY]. Isn't it enough to specify that a server MUST ignore the value of if the loginSec extension is used? I don't know if I overlooked it, but it seems that there's only support for password based login and provisioning.

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-06.txt

2018-01-08 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Just a small note... Shouldn't section 3.1.2 be renamed to EPP Command? I think the purpose of the extension is to extend poll messages, no? Moreover, the draft talks about Example poll response I think that's an error. Poll info does not exist. It should be poll req Pieter On 05 Jan

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-06.txt

2018-01-08 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
n.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Pieter Vandepitte <pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be<mailto:pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be>> Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 3:11 AM To: "rege

Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07

2018-08-09 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
name a few of them. Isn’t this useful content for some kind of Best Practices document? Kind regards Pieter -- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be> [DNS_PUNT_Belgium_RGB] From: regext on behalf of Linlin Zhou Date: Thur

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

2018-08-10 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Did anyone consider RFC 6321 (xcal)? It has features like recurrences too. A maintenance event is basically just a calendar event + some data about the scope/context... Kind regards -- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be>

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2018JUN05) Notes

2018-07-06 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
and other extensions. Thoughts? Pieter -- Pieter Vandepitte Product Expert +32 16 28 49 70 www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be> [DNS_PUNT_Belgium_RGB] From: regext on behalf of Roger D Carney Date: Tuesday 3 July 2018 at 20:04 To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [

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

2018-04-13 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
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

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

2018-04-16 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
> > (1) I think the solution is just not right. It's a quick and dirty way of > doing these things. The right way imo is defining a new RDAP extension (with > a dedicated attribute to identify the authoritative source) > (2) In my opinion there are other, existing, mechanisms for discovering

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

2018-04-16 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
e: > > Dear Pieter, > Thanks for your support. I'll update the text according to your comments. > Please see some my feedbacks inline. > > Regards, > Linlin > zhoulin...@cnnic.cn <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn> > > From: Pieter Vandepitte <mailto:pieter

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

2018-04-16 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Hi, my 2 cents: (1) I think the solution is just not right. It's a quick and dirty way of doing these things. The right way imo is defining a new RDAP extension (with a dedicated attribute to identify the authoritative source) (2) In my opinion there are other, existing, mechanisms for

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2019JUN11) Notes

2019-07-03 Thread Pieter Vandepitte
Thanks for the minutes. This also triggered me to re-read the DSF draft :) Regarding reporting, I don’t know the details of the conversations in that meeting, but keep in mind that we are not the first ones to invent the wheel... There are initiatives like CSV on the web