Folks, At .dk we also offer a form form of registry lock, called VID, which I’d like to redesign at some point. Having a standardised, or at least similar “enough” product offering across different registries and TLDs would make it much more attractive for registrants. Even though I won’t be in Prague, I’m certainly interested in following any standardisation effort.
Best, Erwin > On 25 Feb 2019, at 17.11, Marc Groeneweg <marc.groene...@sidn.nl> wrote: > > All, > > At SIDN (for .nl) we have our own form of registry lock called .nl control > (https://www.sidn.nl/en/nl-control?language_id=2). Perhaps this can be used > as input for a joined effort in increasing security around registry/registrar > operations. > > Regards, > Marc Groeneweg > > On 25/02/2019, 14:57, "regext on behalf of Gavin Brown" > <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of gavin.br...@centralnic.com> wrote: > > If a BoF happens in Prague I will certainly attend. > > On 25/02/2019 07:26, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: >> Antoin, all, >> >> >> >> for now this is more a question / request to the group, rather than a >> specific agenda slot request – but: >> >> >> >> In the light of the recent attacks on registration interfaces, do we >> want to take a fresh look at standardization of “Registry Lock” / >> “Security Lock”. There’s some previous work on this topic (see >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wallstrom-epp-registrant-problem-statement-00). >> As Patrick pointed out, there’s also some IPR considerations in this >> area (See his blog post at >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150603_registry_lock_or_epp_with_two_factor_authentication/). >> >> >> >> I constantly hear from registrars that “Security Lock” (our product >> name) would be much more attractive if there wasn’t a myriad of >> different processes at each registry – so my take is that there’s room >> for standardization (which probably goes beyond the pure EPP extension). >> I’m also hearing some fellow ccTLD colleages are interesting in a >> common “profile”. >> >> Would regext be the right spot for such a discussion? If yes, would it >> be interesting to hold a 20 minutes slot in Prague? Or even a Bar-BoF >> before we “report back” to the working group? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> *Von:*regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> *Im Auftrag von *Antoin Verschuren >> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 24. Februar 2019 14:43 >> *An:* Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> >> *Betreff:* [regext] Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Please find the preliminary agenda for Prague attached. >> I hope I captured everyone that has requested time to speak. If not, let >> the chairs know. >> We still have a little bit of time left on the agenda, so if you have >> urgent agenda items, let us know as well. >> If you are on the agenda, start preparing ;-) >> >> >> >> >> Regards, Jim and Antoin >> >> - -- >> Antoin Verschuren >> >> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL >> M: +31 6 37682392 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > -- > Gavin Brown > Chief Technology Officer > CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) > Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services > for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries > https://www.centralnic.com/ > +44.7548243029 > > CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with > company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, > EC2R 6AR. > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
