[regext] regext - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110

2021-01-18 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):  2 Hours
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 Chair Conflict: saag sacm add sidrops

 Key Participant Conflict: 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] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

2021-01-18 Thread James Galvin 
This is a formal adoption request for “Finding the Authoritative 
Registration Data (RDAP) Service”:


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption 
by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view.


Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review text, or 
be a document shepherd.


Please also indicate any preference you have for a proposed milestone 
date.


This call for adoption ends Monday, 1 February 2021.

If there are no objections, and we receive enough consensus for 
adoption, the chairs will consider this document adopted.


Thanks,

Your REGEXT co-chairs Antoin and Jim

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

[regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-03

2021-01-18 Thread James Galvin 
This is a formal adoption request for “Using JSContact in Registration 
Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses”:


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

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption 
by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view.


Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review text, or 
be a document shepherd.


Please also indicate any preference you have for a proposed milestone 
date.


This call for adoption ends Monday, 1 February 2021.

If there are no objections, and we receive enough consensus for 
adoption, the chairs will consider this document adopted.


Thanks,

Your REGEXT co-chairs Antoin and Jim

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

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-09

2021-01-18 Thread Antoin Verschuren 
James,

Just to note for the record, I was surprised by your surprise ;-), since the 
document authors asked us for a WGLC  in December. We waited for January 4th 
after version 09 was published that addressed your previous feedback. We were 
aware that the discussion on the mailing list took place with your previous 
comments.

The WGLC will end today, but seeing your new comments, we don’t think this is 
ready to be submitted to the IESG just yet.
A formal closure of this WGLC will follow later this week, but so far I can see 
no consensus yet, and work still needs to be done.

regards,

Antoin


> Op 7 jan. 2021, om 14:39 heeft Gould, James 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Antoin,
>  
> I was surprised to see draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance move to 
> WGLC based on the work that has been progressing on the mailing list, so at 
> this point I can’t support publication of the document.  The document editors 
> have addressed my prior feedback.  Upon a fresh review, below is my feedback:
>  
> Upon the draft passing WGLC, the version should be updated to 
> “maintenance-1.0”.  This change should not happen now. 
> Section 3.3 “Maintenance Elements”
> I’m taking the action item to see how the existing registrar notices map to 
> the elements defined in this section.  The registrar notices are free-form 
> currently, but there is some consistency of structure that needs to be 
> evaluated against the formal structure defined in 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.  I anticipate changes to the 
> elements in Section 3.3 “Maintenance Elements” coming out of this mapping 
> exercise.
> Section 4.1.3 “EPP  Command”
> Nit – Change “either ” to “either the  child element” and 
> change “or  child element” to “or the  child 
> element”.  
> Section 7 “Security Considerations”
> It would be worthwhile to consider the security associated with what 
> maintenance information to return back to the client.  A registry access 
> point may return maintenance information for many top-level domains (or 
> registry zones), where the client has authorization to access a subset of 
> top-level domains.  My recommendation is to define the considerations that 
> take into account authorization of the client.  For example:
>i.  “A 
> server MUST only provide maintenance information for clients that are 
> authorized.  If a client queries for a maintenance identifier, per section 
> 4.1.3.1 “Info Maintenance Item”, that it’s not authorized to access, the 
> server MUST return an EPP error result code of 2201 [RFC5730].  The list of 
> top-level domains or registry zones returned in the “Info Maintenance Item” 
> response SHOULD be filtered based on the top-level domains or registry zones 
> the client is authorized.  Authorization of poll messages is done at the time 
> of poll message insertion and not at the time of poll message consumption.”
>  ii.  The 
> poll message use case is a corner case, but I believe it’s important to cover 
> it. 
> Section 9 “References”
> I believe that draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces would need to move into 
> the Normative References since it’s referenced in a normative sentence.  
>  
> -- 
>  
> JG
>  
>  
>  
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com  
>  >
>  
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>  
> Verisign.com   >
>  
> On 1/4/21, 9:40 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" 
> mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 
> i...@antoin.nl > wrote:
>  
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for 
> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
>  
> 
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/18eaw5Rc7eRHLW7NT557WL-OEIuRsuRZfA7LKp3BJ8CRDnwUbnkSep_2VLycXzaOvmv49tji_vZXkav_WSa0LDImf7iVSPHuVnheksrC-Z4yjC-TCdX06-Lys-gkODiVilrOZp1WOmoSapmIw9J5pD0-c_UpkQYAeekRFAzwm17KphqdWz9cW1VprZlDOloub5pH3QB11p7XdAbJQOs_f-_NiiPLxZDEVHyLx2QvUBtzvazi50NwL3TPdpF2dVgB7vFSXzLopwYOp3mnMp-e1dw/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance%2F
>  
> 
>  
> This WG last call will end at close of business, Monday, 18 Januari 2021.
>  
> 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.
>  
>

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

2021-01-18 Thread Jasdip Singh 
Hi.

I support the adoption of this draft.

I can be the document shepherd if needed.

Thanks,
Jasdip

On 1/18/21, 9:28 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" 
 wrote:

This is a formal adoption request for “Finding the Authoritative 
Registration Data (RDAP) Service”:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption 
by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review text, or 
be a document shepherd.

Please also indicate any preference you have for a proposed milestone 
date.

This call for adoption ends Monday, 1 February 2021.

If there are no objections, and we receive enough consensus for 
adoption, the chairs will consider this document adopted.

Thanks,

Your REGEXT co-chairs Antoin and Jim

___
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 ADOPTION: draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-03

2021-01-18 Thread Jasdip Singh 
Hi.

I support the adoption of this draft.

Thanks,
Jasdip

On 1/18/21, 9:28 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" 
 wrote:

This is a formal adoption request for “Using JSContact in Registration 
Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses”:


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

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption 
by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review text, or 
be a document shepherd.

Please also indicate any preference you have for a proposed milestone 
date.

This call for adoption ends Monday, 1 February 2021.

If there are no objections, and we receive enough consensus for 
adoption, the chairs will consider this document adopted.

Thanks,

Your REGEXT co-chairs Antoin and Jim

___
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