Roger, I just published a new version of the I-D (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-01) that incorporates your suggestions.
You may see the changes in the following link: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-01.txt I appreciate your feedback. If neccesary, I will publish a new version, at the end, publishing a new version is cheap. Regards, Gustavo From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com> Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 14:13 To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-00.txt > Good Afternoon, > > In addition to those items that Patrik mentioned, we have been discussing, off > list with several people, a couple issues around: the 48 hour timing > requirement/reference, the use of <tmNotice:notAfter> for expiring, TCNs being > generated twice daily and the verifications/validations required by registries > and registrars. > > Ideally a TCN would be valid indefinitely and only change if claims on a label > have changed, I am not sure why the TMCH is updating these every 12 hours > (twice daily) maybe there are good reasons and I just don't know them:). > Additionally the old TCN should remain valid for a certain amount of time > (e.g. 7 days) so that a customer that has seen and accepted a claim can > process their registration over a reasonable amount of time (many domains are > registered after sitting in a shopping cart for days). I think this could > remove some of the registry checks as well. Current setup makes pre-orders > very inefficient (possibly requiring multiple registrant acceptances of the > same claim information) and results in frustrated customers and dramatically > lower go-live GA registration numbers. > > It is a bit hard to say what to do with this wording in this RFC. I would say > that these details should be extracted and referenced by this RFC, but what > would we reference today? Is there a way to document these things external to > the RFC and have the Claims review of the RPM PDP review that document and > update/approve it (or consume into another document) on their findings? Except > for moving these items to an external document I think until the RPM PDP > discusses these issues, the current values should stay (just in another > document) as almost everyone (Registries and Registrars) already follows these > details today, we can just make it better. > > > Thanks > Roger > > > -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 1:50 PM > To: Patrik Fältström <p...@frobbit.se>; Gustavo Lozano > <gustavo.loz...@icann.org> > Cc: regext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-00.txt > > I want to remind the working group that we have the following unresolved > comments regarding draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec. We need to address these > comments before this document can move forward. > > And please note that draft-ietf-regext-launchphase is dependent on this > document. It is ready for publication but can not move forward until we can > move both it and tmch-func-spec together. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > On 23 Apr 2016, at 1:53, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> > Comments (some of this can also be fund in SSAC document SAC-060 23 >> > July 2013): >> > >> > 1. It is not clear how permutations of strings are to be calculated >> > (by whom, and how) in the case confusability risks might arise. For >> > example by the use of language tables or other mechanisms like LGRs. >> > >> > 2. The term "leftmost" is a bit confusing when talking about labels in >> > DNS. I propose using "first" as in logical order. >> > >> > 3. The matching algorithm is not described, who is implementing it >> > etc. >> > >> > 4. There are no instructions on how to handle cases where the matching >> > algorithm in TMCH is different from matching algorithm one "expect" >> > ("one" as in the trademark holder). >> > >> > Patrik >> > >> > On 22 Apr 2016, at 22:39, internet-dra...@ietf.org >> <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: >> > >>> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> >> directories. >>> >> This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions of >>> >> the IETF. >>> >> >>> >> Title : ICANN TMCH functional specifications >>> >> Author : Gustavo Lozano >>> >> Filename : draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-00.txt >>> >> Pages : 60 >>> >> Date : 2016-04-22 >>> >> >>> >> Abstract: >>> >> This document describes the requirements, the architecture and the >>> >> interfaces between the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and >>> >> Domain Name Registries as well as between the ICANN TMCH and Domain >>> >> Name Registrars for the provisioning and management of domain names >>> >> during Sunrise and Trademark Claims Periods. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec/ >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec/> >>> >> >>> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-00 >>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-00> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>> >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >>> >> tools.ietf.org. >>> >> >>> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> >> i-d-annou...@ietf.org <mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org> >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce> >>> >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html> or >>> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > regext mailing list >> > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext> > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
