[regext] regext - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109

2020-10-02 Thread IETF Meeting Session Request Tool 



A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Antoin Verschuren, a 
Chair of the regext working group.


-
Working Group Name: Registration Protocols Extensions
Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area
Session Requester: Antoin Verschuren


Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  1 Hour
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 Chair Conflict: saag sacm add

 Key Participant Conflict: hrpc dnssd dprive dnsop





People who must be present:
  James Galvin
  Barry Leiba
  Antoin Verschuren

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:
  
-


___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt

2020-10-02 Thread internet-drafts 


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the 
IETF.

Title   : Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query 
Parameters for Result Sorting and Paging
Authors : Mario Loffredo
  Maurizio Martinelli
  Scott Hollenbeck
Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt
Pages   : 31
Date: 2020-10-02

Abstract:
   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include core
   functionality for clients to provide sorting and paging parameters
   for control of large result sets.  This omission can lead to
   unpredictable server processing of queries and client processing of
   responses.  This unpredictability can be greatly reduced if clients
   can provide servers with their preferences for managing large
   responses.  This document describes RDAP query extensions that allow
   clients to specify their preferences for sorting and paging result
   sets.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt

2020-10-02 Thread Mario Loffredo 

Hi everybody,

hope this new version includes all the edits suggested by Ben and Roman.

Ben, please note I updated the "Introduction" section again. I think now 
it is consistent with your remark.


Happy to take any feedback should I have missed something.


Best,

Mario



 Messaggio Inoltrato 
Oggetto: 	New Version Notification for 
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt

Data:   Fri, 02 Oct 2020 07:42:29 -0700
Mittente:   internet-dra...@ietf.org
A: 	Maurizio Martinelli , Scott 
Hollenbeck , Mario Loffredo 






A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mario Loffredo and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging
Revision: 18
Title: Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters for 
Result Sorting and Paging

Document date: 2020-10-02
Group: regext
Pages: 31
URL: 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt
Status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
Htmlized: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging
Htmlized: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18
Diff: 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18


Abstract:
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include core
functionality for clients to provide sorting and paging parameters
for control of large result sets. This omission can lead to
unpredictable server processing of queries and client processing of
responses. This unpredictability can be greatly reduced if clients
can provide servers with their preferences for managing large
responses. This document describes RDAP query extensions that allow
clients to specify their preferences for sorting and paging result
sets.



Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis

2020-10-02 Thread James Galvin 
The WGLC for this document was scheduled to end today.  While there is 
support to move the document forward there are two minor comments that 
have been raised during the last call.


The chairs would like to hear from other working group members as to 
what to do with these comments.  Rather than close the last call and 
risk another last call, we are extending this last call for another 
week.  If we can come to a consensus as to how to proceed before the end 
of last call than the document can stay on track to be submitted to the 
IESG after the last call.


The WG last call will end at close of business on Friday, 9 October 
2020.




Here are the comments as seen on the mailing list.  Please respond with 
your suggestions regarding these two comments.




James Gould:

I have one item to bring up with draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis, which is 
associated with Section 5.1 “The Entity Object Class”.   The jCard 
"version" and "fn" members are required according to RFC 6350, which 
poses an issue if a contact name does not exist or needs to be redacted. 
 To address this case, I recommend adding a sentence to the end of 
section 3 "Common Data Types":


Contact information is defined using jCards as described in [RFC7095].  
The “version” and “fn” members are required according to 
[RFC6350], where an empty “fn” member MAY be used when the contact 
name does not exist or is redacted.


Two response have been offered:

Scott Hollenbeck:

I'd like to see some discussion of this suggestion. If one understands 
the normative references, the suggestion is already implicitly 
addressed. There may be some value in describing this situation 
explicitly since it came up in the ICANN gTLD implementation context, 
but so others think this clarification is necessary?


Jasdip Singh:

Seems if the RDAP profile for the DNRs 
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en) 
could clarify this, the spec could be left as-is.




Mario Loffredo:

The document does not contain any requirement or recommendation about 
when returning ldhName and unicodeName values. However, the examples 
seem to convey the idea that ldhName must  always be returned and 
unicodeName must be returned in case of an IDN.


No responses yet.



Thanks!

Antoin and Jim





On 18 Sep 2020, at 9:52, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

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-rfc7483bis/

This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 2 October 
2020.


Please 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.


The document shepherd for this document is Jasdip Singh.

Regards,

Jim and Antoin







___
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

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis

2020-10-02 Thread James Galvin 
The WGLC for this document was scheduled to end today.  While there is 
support to move the document forward there is one minor comment that has 
been raised during the last call.


The chairs would like to hear from other working group members as to 
what to do with this comment.  Rather than close the last call and risk 
another last call, we are extending this last call for another week.  If 
we can come to a consensus as to how to proceed before the end of last 
call than the document can stay on track to be submitted to the IESG 
after the last call.


The WG last call will end at close of business on Friday, 9 October 
2020.



Here are the comments as seen on the mailing list.  Please respond with 
your suggestions regarding these two comments.



James Gould:

Yes, lumping the registrar object with the contact object under a single 
RDAP entity object interface is the rub.  We solved the problem in the 
RDAP Profile, by supporting entity lookup by IANA ID (number) and 
registrar name (string) for the registrar objects, and by ROID 
(“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") for the contact objects.  Where there is 
overlap, which is registrar name (string) and ROID 
((“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") the contact takes precedence.  My 
recommendation is to provide guidance in the section 3.1.5 "Entity Path 
Segment Specification" for this real world case:


The  parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
registration provider.  For example, for some DNRs, contact
identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733], and
registrar identifiers are specified using the IANA Registrar ID
assigned by ICANN.  The server SHOULD define a scheme
for the  parameter to differentiate between the
supported entity object types (e.g., contact and registrar),
such as using different  formats, using a 
precedence order, or a combination of formats and precedence
order.

The SHOULD could be a MUST, but the point is to provide guidance to 
implementers of the protocol.


Two responses have been offered:

Jasdip Singh response:

One thought is if it could be in the RDAP profile doc for the DNRs 
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en). 
That way no need to update the spec.


James Gould response:

The RDAP Profile is dependent on the RFC, so I wouldn't create a 
circular dependency.  My recommendation is to take the lessons learned 
in implementing the RFC and provide guidance on how to handle it in the 
RFC directly.




Thanks!

Antoin and Jim





On 18 Sep 2020, at 9:52, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

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-rfc7482bis/

This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 2 October 
2020.


Please 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.


The document shepherd for this document is Mario Loffredo.

Regards,

Jim and Antoin








___
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

Re: [regext] Call for agenda items for IETF 109

2020-10-02 Thread James Galvin 
The chairs have received three requests for agenda topics for IETF109.  
We have requested a 1 hour time slot to accommodate these requests.  The 
three topics are as follows.


* Simple Registration Reporting - Joseph Yee

* 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation/ 
- Gavin Brown


* “unrenew” command in EPP - Jody Kolker

Antoin and Jim




On 18 Sep 2020, at 9:58, Antoin Verschuren wrote:


Hi all,

This is a call for agenda items for the IETF 109 virtual meeting.
The chairs plan to request a meeting slot, but we would like to know 
how long a session is needed..


A special note to authors of newly adopted or an active draft on our 
milestones list:
If you want your document to proceed, it would be wise to ask some 
time on the agenda to discuss your document.


Regards,

Jim and Antoin
___
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

[regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03

2020-10-02 Thread James Galvin 
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-unhandled-namespaces/

This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 16 October 
2020.


Please 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.


The document shepherd for this document is David Smith.

Regards,

Antoin and Jim

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03

2020-10-02 Thread James Galvin 
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-secure-authinfo-transfer/

This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 16 October 
2020.


Please 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.


The document shepherd for this document is Jody Kolker.

Regards,

Antoin and Jim

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03

2020-10-02 Thread James Galvin 
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/

This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 16 October 
2020.


Please 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.


The document shepherd for this document is James Galvin.

Regards,

Antoin and Jim

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18: (with COMMENT)

2020-10-02 Thread Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker 
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thanks for the updates in the -18; they look good with one exception:

In Section 2.4, I strongly recommend using the word "encode" (and "encoding")
instead of "encrypt" (and "encryption") -- it is good to reserve the term 
"encrypt"
for a procedure that applies cryptographic protection.  Part of why we are
anti-recommending base64 for this usage is because it does not provide 
cryptographic
protection, so it is surprising to use the word "encrypt" to describe it.



___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt

2020-10-02 Thread Benjamin Kaduk 
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 05:24:32PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> hope this new version includes all the edits suggested by Ben and Roman.
> 
> Ben, please note I updated the "Introduction" section again. I think now 
> it is consistent with your remark.

It is more than consistent -- it is very well said; thank you.

I have updated my ballot position in the datatracker.

Thanks again for the updates and explanations!

-Ben

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt

2020-10-02 Thread Roman Danyliw 
Hi Mario!

Thanks for merging all of the updates we discussed into -18.  This addressed my 
DISCUSS and COMMENTS.  I’ve cleared my ballot.

Regards,
Roman

From: Mario Loffredo 
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 11:25 AM
To: regext@ietf.org; Benjamin Kaduk ; Roman Danyliw 

Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for 
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt


Hi everybody,

hope this new version includes all the edits suggested by Ben and Roman.

Ben, please note I updated the "Introduction" section again. I think now it is 
consistent with your remark.

Happy to take any feedback should I have missed something.



Best,

Mario


 Messaggio Inoltrato 
Oggetto:

New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt

Data:

Fri, 02 Oct 2020 07:42:29 -0700

Mittente:

internet-dra...@ietf.org

A:

Maurizio Martinelli 
, Scott 
Hollenbeck , Mario 
Loffredo 




A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mario Loffredo and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging
Revision: 18
Title: Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters for Result 
Sorting and Paging
Document date: 2020-10-02
Group: regext
Pages: 31
URL: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18.txt
Status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
Htmlized: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging
Htmlized: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18
Diff: 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-18

Abstract:
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include core
functionality for clients to provide sorting and paging parameters
for control of large result sets. This omission can lead to
unpredictable server processing of queries and client processing of
responses. This unpredictability can be greatly reduced if clients
can provide servers with their preferences for managing large
responses. This document describes RDAP query extensions that allow
clients to specify their preferences for sorting and paging result
sets.



Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext