+1
During my 14-year tenure on the registrar side, where we implemented almost
every gTLD and many ccTLDs, I always felt well-informed by registries if they
intended to make substantial changes. While this feature seems nice, I don’t
know if the effort is worth it.
Best,
Tobias
On 20. Mar 2024, at 12:59, Jody Kolker<jkolker=40godaddy....@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:
Just adding my 2 cents.
It seems that designing and implementing a discovery system seems to be a bit
complicated and will take some time to design and complete. Every registry
will be contacting registrars when a new system is enabled, or at least should
be. I don’t see a huge benefit of adding a service discovery system compared
to the amount of time it will take to design and implement. I would rather we
spend our time defining the separate transport system than designing a
discovery system.
Thanks,
Jody Kolker
319-329-9805 (mobile)
Please contact my direct supervisor Scott Courtney (scourt...@godaddy.com) with
any feedback.
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have
received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and
permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its
attachments.
From: regext<regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:11 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott<shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc:regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] EPP Transport Service Discovery
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@.
Scott, et al,
This seems to me an excellent idea, but let me suggest adding a bit more
content.
And before doing so, let me acknowledge that a registry will likely inform its
registrars well in advance of any changes and will likely provide a test system
for registers to use in advance of a cutover to a new transport system. But
rather than depending on this alone, an automated process for discovering the
transport will be very helpful.
And now for the added content:
If a registry upgrades to a new transport method, it will likely operate both
the old and new transport for a period of time. Indeed, it might even support
three or more transport methods during some periods. Accordingly, the response
to a service discovery query will likely contain multiple answers. Each answer
should also include a flag indicating whether it is a preferred method.
But wait, there's more.
Each transport method will go through a lifecycle. The transport method
lifecycle has the following states.
A. Announcement that the method will be supported in the future. (Including
the anticipated date is a good idea, but the date should be interpreted as a
guess, not a certainty.)
B. Announcement that the method is now supported. Include the date it became supported.
(A transport method in this state is "preferred." There should be at least one
method in this state, but there could be more than one.)
C. Announcement that the method that has been supported is scheduled to be
removed. Include the estimated date of removal. This will serve as notice
that any registrar still using the transport should move to another available
method that has reached state B. (And, of course, there should indeed already
be at least one method in state B.)
D. Announcement that the method will become unavailable on a specific date.
(All use of a method in this state should have ceased. However, if the method
is still in use by a registrar, it will work. The registry's system or other
monitoring systems can take note and escalate attention to the appropriate
managers,)
E. Removal of the transport method from the set of answers.
Extension of the proposal to include these states is easy. Just add a flag to
indicate whether the transport method is in state A, B, C or D, and include the
date.
Comments?
Steve
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 7:11 PM Hollenbeck,
Scott<shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
As noted during this morning’s regext session, we need to consider how a client
can discover the transport services provided by an EPP server. Opportunistic
probing is one method, another is server capability publication using something
like an SVCB record that’s published in a DNS zone maintained by the EPP server
operator. Perhaps something like this:
epp.example.net. 7200 IN SVCB 3 epp.example.net. (
alpn="bar" port="700" transport="tcp")
There is no “transport” SvcParamKey currently registered with IANA, but that’s
easy to do. I think there’s a draft here that needs to be written.
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Sent by a Verified
sender
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
