Good Morning, This is great, thanks Jim for the thorough review and comments.
We can use this set of items to start our discussions today. Thanks Roger From: Gould, James [mailto:jgo...@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 12:56 PM To: Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com>; Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, I preparation for the Interim Meeting, I did a deeper dive into the Validate draft, and I have the following feedback: 1. I don’t see the purpose of the <validate:cd> element in the check command. Initially, I thought the <validate:cd> may support a list within a list (e.g., <validate:contact>), but that is not the case. There is also a little confusion with the use of <validate:cd> in both the check command and response. My recommendation is to remove the <validate:cd> element from the check command and simply move all its sub-elements to sub-elements of the <validate:contact> element. 2. Is the extension meant to validate the contact details of existing contacts by contact id and also non-existent contacts based on the contact details, by contact type and by tld? * If both cases are true, then wouldn’t you have a choice of referencing the contact by identifier for an existing contact or defining the contact attributes for a non-existing contact? * Also, what if you desire to use the same contact information for multiple contact types for a tld? i. Do you need to replicate the same attributes for each contact type? ii. It may be better to define a single contact (existing with contact identifier) or contact attributes for non-existing with the list of contact types. I imagine that you always want to validate a contact within the scope of a tld. 1. I view definition of only the check command and response with many contacts and with extensibility via the kv elements as somewhat non-optimal. Other options include: * Instead of supporting multiple contacts in an individual command, why not support the check or info of an individual contact with attribute extensibility via command / response extensions. Yes, you can validate only a single contact with multiple target types and a tld at a time, but you get to use existing contact command / response extensions to define the additional contact attributes without having to use key / value pairs. * Create a validate command / response extension of the contact mapping that extends the contact create to function as a no-op with the additional attributes used to validate usage of the contact (e.g., object - domain, contact types, tld), which would define a validate contact validate create command. The contact info could have been extended by the validate extension to function as a validate usage command with the usage attributes consistent with the contact validate create command (e.g., object – domain, contact types, tld). In this case, the contact commands can be directly extended by the validate extension. 2. Each element needs to be fully described. I include some examples below: * <validate:contact> element does not define the required “contactType” or “tld” attributes. * There is no description of any of the <validate:cd> sub-elements in the check command or response. 3. Wouldn’t be better to include a required “valid” attribute in the check response <validate:cd> element with an optional reason and reason language similar to the domain check response? I’m not sure if there is a real need to define a whole list of validity errors using the list of <validate:kv> elements. It may be good enough to short circuit the validation by simply saying yes or no and if no a human readable reason. There would be no need for the <validate:response> element or the <validate:kv> elements. 4. I don’t recommend directly referencing the urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 elements, since it adds a direct dependency to inclusion of the contact XML schema and namespace for a subset of the elements that are really specific to the validate mapping. I would prefer for the validate XML schema to stand on its own by only referring to epp and eppcom, with no cross references to contact. This would mean copying and pasting elements directly from the contact XML schema into the validate XML schema, which is an inconvenient, but makes it easier to implement. — JG [cid: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: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Roger Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com<mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 12:33 PM To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Good Morning, I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Tuesday June 5th at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. We plan to focus the discussion around two topics: Agenda 1. Validate draft (comments, concerns, implementations) 2. Registry Mapping a. Continue the lively discussion that was started in London b. Policy Extension Review: how a server implements an extension, the SHOULD(s), MAY(s), etc. We will once again use Zoom as a conferencing tool, please use this link<https://godaddy.zoom.us/j/453206454> to connect to the meeting. Please reply to the list or directly to myself if you plan on attending this meeting. Thanks Roger
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
