I agree with Scott¹s comments. I agree with Jim Galvin¹s suggestion that this draft should be standards track.
After these changes, I think that the draft should be ready for publication as an RFC. It's worth mentioning that this draft is important for the RDAP deployment efforts in the gTLD space. Regards, Gustavo On 6/17/16, 06:50, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote: >Two comments: > >1. The IANA Considerations section includes requests to register a number >of RDAP status values. The registrant for each of these values is >"VeriSign Inc.". Given that the intended status of this document is >currently "Informational" that might be OK, but since these values aren't >proprietary to Verisign I'm going to suggest that it might be more >appropriate for the IESG to be the registrant. > >OLD: >Registrant Name: VeriSign Inc. >Registrant Contact Information: epp-regis...@verisign.com > >NEW: >Registrant Name: IESG >Registrant Contact Information: i...@ietf.org > >2. The Security Considerations section says "The mapping described in >this document do not provide any security services beyond those described >by RDAP [RFC7483]". That's true, but I think some text needs to be added >to note that implementation of this mapping can expose more information >about registered domain names to any client who asks, and that raises >privacy concerns. The issue should be noted, and the possible mitigation >using client authentication with authorization and access control >policies can be described. > >Scott > >_______________________________________________ >regext mailing list >regext@ietf.org >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
