Thanks for the reply Marcel. If registrys had a standard email format for sending out registry notices, I would tend to agree with you. But since I have not seen any type of standard among registry maintenance emails, we are proposing at least a specification that should be able to be used by all registrys that the registrars can parse easily. Emails can go unnoticed, mailboxes full or moved into folders by rules that have been set up incorrectly. Sending the notification via an EPP messages gives registrars the ability to parse the elements that registrars are most concerned with in a standard format. Could this be done with emails? Sure, but not as easily unless a spec was defined for the email. The maintenance system, time, duration, environment, impact and TLDs can be read from a standard format within an EPP poll message easier and more reliably than a free form email.
As far as system names needing to be standard, I am not concerned if one registry calls their EPP system “EPP” and another calls it “SRS”. It seems as if every registry has implemented their own version of an EPP “redemption” of a domain, their own domain lifecycle, and EPP implementation of Sunrise and Landrush protocols. Determining the names of each registrys system will be much easier than any of those three processes. I do not plan on parsing the free form description for any information regarding the maintenance, as I expect no other registrars will. As I stated above, we are only concerned with what time, duration, environment, impact and TLDs, which are separate elements in the specification. However, description was added in case registrars wanted to send a more human readable message in the their systems to operations or customer support teams. Registrars plan to rely heavily on this EPP message so that they can automate the messaging of registry maintenance to our entire company instead of having someone manually read emails and update notifications to our specific teams. It has become an operational burden to try to keep up with the stream of maintenance emails that arrive constantly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jody Kolker. From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Marcel Parodi Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 11:40 AM To: Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl>; regext <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. For some time now, I’ve been wondering whether it’s a good idea to choose the EPP service as a channel to provide information about maintenance windows of an unspecified set of services. After reading last weeks discussion here on the mailing list, it seems rather unrealistic to me, that this proposed EPP extension will ever help a registrar to significantly simplify its job of juggling with the services of hundreds of registries. In my view, the semantics of several fields are not defined precise enough to be of much help. And during the last week it got even worse (by declaring <system:host> as optional). A “system” (what I usually call a service) is specified by two free form strings (<system:id>, <system:name>) and an (meanwhile) optional <system:host>. The value of <system:name> can be updated by the registry at discretion. How can an EPP client make sense out of these strings? In my opinion, the proposed extension can only be used to communicate the beginning and end of some maintenance windows in machine readable form. Information about the affected services can be provided only as free form text (or as a URI whose content can be changed at any time). Or is it indended, that the missing semantics will be specified outside IETF? Will some other group need to specify an “EPP maintenance profile”? Regards, Marcel. On 12.04.21, 15:49, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of i...@antoin.nl<mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> wrote: Hi all, This is a reminder that this 2nd WGLC will end tonight! We still don’t seem to have enough consensus, so please state your support. Also if you have responded to the first WGLC. Regards, Jim and Antoin Op 29 mrt. 2021, om 14:49 heeft Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl<mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> het volgende geschreven: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/ EXTRA ATTENTION: This is the second WGLC for this document. During the first WGLC, there were still some substantial comments to be addressed, and there was not enough positive feedback to declare consensus on this document. Let’s do better this time and please take the time to review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by replying to this message on the list. Since we have 3 authors, we need more reviewers to state support! This WG last call will end at close of business, Monday, 12 April 2021. The document shepherd for this document is James Galvin. Regards, Antoin and Jim _______________________________________________ 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
