Rubens, The clID provides the identifier for the registrar, but not the registrar information that is needed for a transfer. Specifically, the Whois Info Extension (https://www.verisign.com/assets/epp-sdk/verisign_epp-extension_whois-info_v01.html) includes the registrar name, url, and whois server. The other element that will add to registrar complexity is the value chosen for the clID by the registry. Some registries may choose to use an internal identifier or use the IANA identifier, where there is no mechanism for the registrar to know what scheme is being used. The sponsoring registrar information can be retrieved via draft-ietf-regext-org using a consistent identifier scheme provided by draft-ietf-regext-org-ext. No need for mapping clID schemes or having to go out-of-band to retrieve the information.
— JG [id:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl <rube...@nic.br> Date: Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:11 AM To: James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com> Cc: Jody Kolker <jkol...@godaddy.com>, James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com>, Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>, regext <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension Isn't the sponsoring registrar already available in the clID field of the object ? Rubens On Sep 18, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote: Jody, You don’t have any use for retrieving the sponsoring registrar information via EPP in the support of transfers? A registrar could certainly go out to Whois to obtain the registrar information, but I believe that retrieving the information over EPP is a better solution. — JG <image001.png> James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<x-msg://3/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Jody Kolker <jkol...@godaddy.com<mailto:jkol...@godaddy.com>> Date: Friday, September 15, 2017 at 5:05 PM To: James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>>, James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com<mailto:gal...@elistx.com>>, Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn<mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>> Cc: regext <regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [regext] implementation status of organization extension Hi Jim, We do not have any intention at this time of implementing this draft. We have no desire to send reseller information to the registry due to competition concerns. We believe there is no reason for the registry to require this suite of information. Thanks, Jody Kolker From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 9:14 AM To: James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com<mailto:gal...@elistx.com>>; Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn<mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>> Cc: regext <regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension Jim, There is one additional potential use is for providing registrar information in support of transfers. We have a proprietary Whois Info Extension (https://www.verisign.com/assets/epp-sdk/verisign_epp-extension_whois-info_v00.html) that extends the domain info command and response to include the sponsoring registrar’s name, whois server, and URL to enable registrars to get this information without having to go to Whois. The Whois Info Extension was created based on registrar feedback. Providing the information from the organization extension would serve the same purpose. I view providing the registrar information via the organization mapping and extension as potentially providing immediate value. Would registrars see value in this? — JG <image002.png> James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<x-msg://3/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com<mailto:gal...@elistx.com>> Date: Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM To: Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn<mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>> Cc: regext <regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] implementation status of organization extension At least two potential uses of these drafts have been identified by this group: for resellers and for DNS operators. It would be very helpful if folks from those communities would make a point of reviewing these documents and consider supporting them or at least indicating you have no objection. Of course, if you have any implementation notes, real or planned, that would be even better. Thanks, Jim On 21 Aug 2017, at 22:03, Linlin Zhou wrote: Dear all, To support WG's suggestion, the organization extension drafts plan to add a section on implementation status. If you have already implemented organization extention, know of any existing implementations or planned implementations, please send me a mail for us to update the drafts. Any reviews or comments will be appreciated. Regards, ________________________________ Linlin Zhou _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
