On Wed, May 30, 2018, at 22:24, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> I remember a CENTR meeting where ccTLD’s tried to get consensus over if
> we could harmonize EPP extensions so registrars would not have to code
> differently for every TLD.
> This was before EPPEXT existed.
> We all thought this would be
Op 28 mei 2018, om 22:48 heeft Patrick Mevzek het volgende
geschreven:
> In your quote you missed the other part which is basically: all domain names
> are not under ICANN policies.
I didn’t want to go in that discussion, but I’m on your side on that one.
> So for all other TLDs currently can
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 tho
Antoin,
On Mon, May 28, 2018, at 22:40, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018, at 21:29, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> > Op 27 mei 2018, om 21:23 heeft Patrick Mevzek het
> > volgende geschreven:
> >
> > > This is covered I think in ICANN world by section 1.4.2 of the whois
> > > spe
On Mon, May 28, 2018, at 21:29, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Op 27 mei 2018, om 21:23 heeft Patrick Mevzek het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> > This is covered I think in ICANN world by section 1.4.2 of the whois
> > specification:
> >
> > "Additional data elements can be added at the end of the t
Op 27 mei 2018, om 21:23 heeft Patrick Mevzek het volgende
geschreven:
> This is covered I think in ICANN world by section 1.4.2 of the whois
> specification:
>
> "Additional data elements can be added at the end of the text format outlined
> below.”
Ah yes, let’s take the solution of "we ca
[p...@dotandco.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 3:23 PM
To: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
On Fri, May 25, 2018, at 15:45, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> 1. I saw the need for some registries to give organizations other than
> the traditional Registrar
of Antoin Verschuren
[i...@antoin.nl]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 5:39 PM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
Oh, and when reviewing, I found another completely different issue, and that is
with object ownership.
I see a role c
: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
Oh, and when reviewing, I found another completely different issue, and that is
with object ownership.
I see a role can have an optional parentID, but what if my organization is
reseller for more than one
On Fri, May 25, 2018, at 15:45, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> 1. I saw the need for some registries to give organizations other than
> the traditional Registrars and Registrants a role in the registration
> process, but this was not limited to resellers.
But yet I am not sure to have seen a lot of
n,
>>
>> My feedback is embedded below.
>>
>> —
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>>
>> James Gould
>> Distinguished Engineer
>> jgo...@verisign.com
>>
>> 703-948-3271
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
ren
> Date: Friday, May 25, 2018 at 12:19 PM
> To: James Gould
> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
>
> Op 25 mei 2018, om 16:26 heeft Gould, James
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>> So my m
PM
To: James Gould
Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
Op 25 mei 2018, om 16:26 heeft Gould, James
mailto:jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org>>
het volgende geschreven:
So my major question is: Can we still remove the e
Op 25 mei 2018, om 16:26 heeft Gould, James
het volgende geschreven:
> So my major question is: Can we still remove the elements from the
> organization object and only use the in the domain objects ? What
> would it break? Or could we at least have text that this role element can
> never b
So my major question is: Can we still remove the elements from the
organization object and only use the in the domain objects ? What
would it break? Or could we at least have text that this role element can never
be set by a random EPP command for an organization but is always set by the
Regi
Apologies for not having stepped into this discussion before.
Having to reread all the treads and all changes during WGLC now the WGLC has
ended I can understand Patrick’s concerns.
Since I was one of the many voices changing the reseller drafts into the org
drafts I will try to explain my concer
Pieter,
It is interesting that when the drafts came out for resellers there was a lot
of discussion on the list and at the working group meetings, but once there was
agreement to create the more generic organization drafts, there was very little
discussion. It was pointed out that the organiza
On Thu, May 24, 2018, at 12:37, Pieter Vandepitte wrote:
> The only thing that bothers me in general (not only for this extension)
> is the low participation in discussion making it difficult to develop a
> specification that fits all needs.
I think there was quite a lot of participation at the
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:24:56PM +0200, Pieter Vandepitte wrote:
> > Not everythint that can be done should be done. This is the main point I
> > will try to address in a separate email since it is a generic issue, not
> > specifically related to this proposal.
>
> I agree with you, do not wr
Hi
> On 24 May 2018, at 07:37, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
>
> In short my main problem, and why I can not support this, is that I do not
> see the use case, besides for one registry that needs it to handle resellers,
> I doubt having seen another registry saying it will use it, so we are just
> pa
<mailto:pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be>; Patrick
> Mevzek <mailto:p...@dotandco.com>
> CC: regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
> I would like to understand the concern around the use of the roles. There
> are c
Hi Patrick,
I respect your opinion and my gut feeling says it won't be used for anything
else than resellers. But I might be wrong (and history tells me the odds are
agains me :-)). I also respect the opinion of others and it's not up to me to
assess in depth the needs of other registries, I ca
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 believe
that the document could be an I-D re
On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 14:05, Gould, James wrote:
> I would like to understand the concern around the use of the roles.
> There are cases where an organization can play multiple roles
> (registrar, privacy proxy, dns provider, etc.) that helps defined what
> kind of links can be made to it.
The "Role Values Registry" was also disccused on the
mailing list and got most people's support.
Regards,
Linlin
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
From: Gould, James
Date: 2018-05-23 20:05
To: Pieter Vandepitte; Patrick Mevzek
CC: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
I would like to understand the concern around the use of the roles. There are
cases where an organization can play multiple roles (registrar, privacy proxy,
dns provider, etc.) that helps defined what kind of links can be made to it.
The roles on the links between the objects and the organizat
Chairs,
Do we postpone the submission to IESG or do I continue my write-up?
@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 guess it's the fact that roles
are defined as properties of the organization and at the same tim
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 document has been publi
On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 15:32, James Galvin wrote:
> With that, version 06 of this document has been published and the chairs
> are declaring WGLC closed. The document is now ready for submission to
> IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
Isn't that a little rushed?
>From a quick sea
This WGLC was intended to close on 27 April however, as you know,
significant discussion started on the 20 April and the chairs have let
the discussion come to a conclusion just this past week.
With that, version 06 of this document has been published and the chairs
are declaring WGLC closed.
] 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:
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
AM
To: James Galvin , Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
I'm a co-author on this draft, but I did a re-read and I have the following
items that need to be addressed. Some of this is based on the experience of
implementing
I'm a co-author on this draft, but I did a re-read and I have the following
items that need to be addressed. Some of this is based on the experience of
implementing draft-ietf-regext-org-02 in the Verisign EPP SDK that includes a
full XML namespace aware and validating client and server.
1
This is a reminder that this document is in working group last call.
Please indicate your support for the publication of this document.
If any working group member objects to the publication of this document
please respond on the list by close of business everywhere, Friday, 27
April 2018. If
.@dnsbelgium.be>
> Date: 2018-04-13 22:06
> To: James Galvin <mailto:gal...@elistx.com>
> CC: Registration Protocols Extensions <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
> I don't want to delay the publication, and I support it, b
WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
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".
Th
[regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
> -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: [EXTERNA
> -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-
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-02
>
> The document editors ha
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
