Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2019JUN11) Notes

 On 2019-07-03 09:45 -0500, Pieter Vandepitte wrote:> The current EPP specifications do not prevent a client to perform “bulk > updates”, it’s just the clients that are not smart enough. If clients > would operate asynchronously (not waiting for a server response), the (except that sometim

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2019JUN11) Notes

] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext on behalf of Pieter Vandepitte Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 10:46 AM To: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2019JUN11) Notes

Thanks for the minutes. This also triggered me to re-read the DSF draft :) Regarding reporting, I don’t know the details of the conversations in that meeting, but keep in mind that we are not the first ones to invent the wheel... There are initiatives like CSV on the web (https://www.w3.org/TR

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting 2019JUN11

Good Afternoon, Unfortunately we have to reschedule this meeting, fortunately we have rescheduled to June 11th, we will plan the same time (16:00 UTC) using the same Zoom conference meeting. Agenda 1. Reporting Repository

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting 2018DEC19

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 11:36, Roger D Carney wrote: > I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Wednesday > December 19th at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Were the minutes and list of attendees for this meeting ever published on this list? I do not find them, at least by searching

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting 2018OCT16

Patrick, I like how you have broken down the problem into discrete registry implementation cases that can be applied to any EPP extension. To make the core object-extension (draft-gould-carney-regext-registry) workable, we need to target case 1 (fully RFC-compliant registry implementers) and

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting 2018OCT16

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, at 11:28, Gould, James wrote: > > * Ensure that the hostAddr model of RFC 5731 is supported > > * > > *Discussion* > > * In the case of a zone that supports domain:hostAddr instead of >

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting 2018OCT16

Patrick, Please review the latest version of draft-gould-carney-regext-registry, since I believe it has changes that are applicable to your feedback (e.g., batch schedule, host attribute support). I provide my responses to your feedback below. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting 2018OCT16

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, at 13:58, Roger D Carney wrote: > * I still don’t like the use of the elements as a > “flexible mechanism to share data between the client and the server”. There are many registries going this route, and it is very sad, even if easy to understand why. It voids any usefuln

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2018OCT16)

I will attend this meeting. Thanks Roger. Jim On 1 Oct 2018, at 12:57, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Morning, I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Tuesday October 16th at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. We plan to focus the discussion around two topics: Agenda 1. Vali

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2018JUN05) Notes

www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be> [DNS_PUNT_Belgium_RGB] From: regext on behalf of Roger D Carney Date: Tuesday 17 July 2018 at 18:36 To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2018JUN05) Notes Good Morning, Thanks Pieter. I thi

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2018JUN05) Notes

painful customer experience and a lot of additional processing to occur. Thanks Roger From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pieter Vandepitte Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 7:05 AM To: Registration Protocols Extensions mailto:regext@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT I

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (2018JUN05) Notes

Short question regarding the validate extension: Isn’t the purpose of the validate extension to do what actually transactions are meant for? Ultimately the goal of the validate extension is to check whether a group of commands are possible: create some contacts, link the contacts to a domain wi

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (Validate Draft)

xt@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (Validate Draft) Good Morning, I will be sending out minutes/notes of the Interim meeting later this week. I agree with what Jim proposed during the meeting and here in reference to providing ids for new/existing contacts, as well a

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting (Validate Draft)

Gould, James Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:27 AM To: Pieter Vandepitte ; Gould, James ; Patrick Mevzek ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Pieter, Regardless of that, I’m still trying to figure out the use of this extension. Will a client first check whether a contact

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Pieter, Regardless of that, I’m still trying to figure out the use of this extension. Will a client first check whether a contact can be created, then interpret the response of the check, and finally create the command. Or will the client just try to create the contact, and in case of error i

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Patrick, Yes, the issue is associated with the loading of the XML schemas and validating the XML against them. There is also a potential code (library) dependency based on where the dependent XML schema (e.g., host-1.0.xsd for the domain mapping) lives. In looking at the Verisign EPP SDK, the

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Maybe I’m missing something, but this draft is about validating contacts, so I don't see an issue in referring to the contact RFC. There’s no point in validating contacts, but not creating them, so the client needs to support the contact xsd anyway. Regardless of that, I’m still trying to figur

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, at 14:21, Gould, James wrote: > This dependency > does require ensuring that the host XML schema is loaded ahead of the > domain XML schema when pre-caching the XML schemas. So it seems having dependencies is only a problem or a difficulty when validating the frames per the

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Patrick, The base EPP protocol is defined using epp and eppcom, where extensions (object or command / response) would naturally be dependent on the base schemas. Creating dependencies across extensions does not allow them to stand on their own, so my preference would be to copy and paste the e

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 19:56, Gould, James wrote: > 4. I don’t recommend directly referencing the > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 elements, since it adds a direct > dependency to inclusion of the contact XML schema and namespace for a > subset of the elements that are really specific to

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, I preparation for the Interim Meeting, I did a deeper dive into the Validate draft, and I have the following feedback: 1. I don’t see the purpose of the element in the check command. Initially, I thought the may support a list within

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Roger, I preparation for the Interim Meeting, I did a deeper dive into the Validate draft, and I have the following feedback: 1. I don’t see the purpose of the element in the check command. Initially, I thought the may support a list within a list (e.g., ), but that is not the case. Th

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

On Fri, May 4, 2018, at 18:33, Roger D Carney wrote: > 2. Registry Mapping > * Continue the lively discussion that was started in London Why is there absolutely no "lively" discussion of this also on this mailing-list? (since this lively discussion in London is also not documented very m

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

I expect to attend this meeting. Jim On 4 May 2018, at 12:33, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Morning, I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Tuesday June 5th at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. We plan to focus the discussion around two topics: Agenda 1. Validate draft (com

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

n Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 8:57 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting I plan to attend. Jim On 17 Jan 2018, at 11:22, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Morning, I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Wed

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

I plan to attend. Jim On 17 Jan 2018, at 11:22, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Morning, I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Wednesday January 31st at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. We plan to focus the discussion around the Registry Mapping proposal. Agenda 1. Introdu

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, at 21:51, Roger D Carney wrote: > Good Afternoon, > > We held an interim meeting today January 10, 2018 and discussed the Fee > document. Thanks Roger for the summary. > We did not make it to discussing the Registry Mapping, we will plan to > have a follow-up meeting to i

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

gt; >   > > Thanks > > Roger > >   > >   > > *From:*Antoin Verschuren [mailto:i...@antoin.nl] > *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2018 9:04 AM > *To:* Roger D Carney > *Cc:* regext@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite >

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018, at 16:55, Gould, James wrote: > Roger and I are currently working on an Internet Draft that is based on > the Verisign proprietary Registry Mapping extension at > https://www.verisign.com/assets/epp-sdk/verisign_epp-extension_registry_v01.html. > James, If interested, I w

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018, at 17:11, Roger D Carney wrote: > For agenda 1.a we will be making the decision on how works > (command or object level), so for those that have an opinion on this > topic, this will be the last time to discuss before the document is > updated. I will probably not be able

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

I'm unfortunately not going to be able to make it due to a scheduling conflict. Scott From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 11:11 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

, this will be the last time to discuss before the document is updated. Thanks Roger From: Antoin Verschuren [mailto:i...@antoin.nl] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 9:04 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite I will attend too. But so far

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

Andy, Roger and I are currently working on an Internet Draft that is based on the Verisign proprietary Registry Mapping extension at https://www.verisign.com/assets/epp-sdk/verisign_epp-extension_registry_v01.html. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

What is this? Is there an I-D on it? -andy On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Roger D Carney wrote: > > Introduce the Registry Mapping concepts ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

AM To: Antoin Verschuren , Roger Carney Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite I will also be there. Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Moninder Jheeta (mjhe...@godaddy

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

Antoin Verschuren Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 9:04 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite I will attend too. But so far the chairs seem to be the only attendants? Are there any more people that will attend? I was waiting for some more respondents

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

I will attend too. But so far the chairs seem to be the only attendants? Are there any more people that will attend? I was waiting for some more respondents before scheduling the meeting. I just submitted the official meeting request, but that would be a late notice for the secretariat. Roger, d

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

I will attend. Jim On 7 Dec 2017, at 11:36, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Morning, I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Wednesday January 10th at 19:00 UTC for 60 minutes. We plan to discuss items around the latest version of the Fee draft and to introduce a Registry Mappi

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

esday, September 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM To: James Gould , Roger Carney , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Thanks Jim. << . If there is no active launch phase or if there is only one active launch phase, then the server should return the curren

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

iday, September 01, 2017 1:00 PM To: Roger D Carney ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, I believe that we’re pulling hairs when it comes to the handling of a “quiet period”. My recommendation is remove any reference to a “quiet period” within draft-ietf-regext

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext on behalf of Roger Carney Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 12:08 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Hi James, After rereading the commands in RFC 573

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Correct, Roger. If an would fail during a quiet period, check should return avail=0. Scott From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 12:08 PM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Hi

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

te phase details for fee information.)? Does anyone else have thoughts on this rewording? Thanks Roger From: Gould, James [mailto:jgo...@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 12:22 PM To: Roger D Carney ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, It’s not c

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext on behalf of Roger Carney Date: Friday, August 25, 2017 at 12:33 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Hi James, So you are suggesting the “quiet perio

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

, 2017 2:43 PM To: Roger D Carney ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, I don’t believe it is clean to assume the capabilities or desire of the client when the current phase is a quiet period by defaulting the return to the “open” / general registration phase. When

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

James Gould , Roger Carney , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Hi guys, Just a general question for this area. If the registrar does not send in a phase or fee extension in a domain:check command for a standard name during a quiet period, would

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, I don’t believe it is clean to assume the capabilities or desire of the client when the current phase is a quiet period by defaulting the return to the “open” / general registration phase. When there is an active phase the behavior is to return the

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

The minutes have been uploaded to the proceedings. If there are any corrections please make that known and I will upload a revised version. Thanks for hosting this meeting! Jim On 23 Aug 2017, at 16:52, Roger D Carney wrote: Good Afternoon, We held an interim meeting this morning and di

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

alf of Roger Carney Date: Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:31 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Good Afternoon, For the quiet period, I think you provide a clean proposal of using “open” but I have one “compatibility/legacy” concern. Ther

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

, August 24, 2017 8:03 AM To: Roger D Carney ; regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Roger, Thanks for hosting this meeting. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate in the meeting. I include some points below based on review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-06 and the minutes

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote: We moved the discussion onto Validate and Jody provided an overview of the problem space and the proposed solution. There was a general agreemen

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Roger, Thanks for hosting this meeting. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate in the meeting. I include some points below based on review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-06 and the minutes: 1. I agree that we shouldn’t mix launch phase detection into the fee extension, and this is

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Roger D Carney wrote: > > > We moved the discussion onto Validate and Jody provided an overview of the > problem space and the proposed solution. There was a general agreement that > this proposal sounds good and seems like a logical business issue to > resolve.

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

> Em 17 de jul de 2017, à(s) 19:42:000, Jody Kolker > escreveu: > > Active to me means a phase where the start date is in the past and the end > date is in the future. > > This interpretation would cause an issue when a check is performed if a > registry was in a quiet period between phase

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Corte Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:38 AM To: Pat Moroney ; regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Pat, On 2017-07-12 19:18, Pat Moroney wrote: > We actually request fees

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Pat, On 2017-07-12 19:18, Pat Moroney wrote: > We actually request fees for future phases so we can sell > pre-registrations and the like. Removing all references to launch phases > would prevent that ability and make things much more complex and prone > to errors. Good point. On that topic, in

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

We actually request fees for future phases so we can sell pre-registrations and the like. Removing all references to launch phases would prevent that ability and make things much more complex and prone to errors. Thanks, -Pat On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM Thomas Corte wrote: > Alexander, > >

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Alexander, On 12/07/2017 09:26, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: > Later during the day yesterday, i > came up with a very simple requirement that i think would cover my > concerns regarding mixing in launch phases in the fee document: > > - The Fee Extension MUST provide full functionality w

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Hello, On 11/07/2017 20:54, Roger D Carney wrote: > We moved on to discussing any new issues/concerns, three items were raised: > > 1. First of which relates to section 3.8 and specifically what happens > when a client does not provide a phase/subphase. We spent the > majority of the me

Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting

Roger, thanks for putting the notes together. Later during the day yesterday, i came up with a very simple requirement that i think would cover my concerns regarding mixing in launch phases in the fee document: - The Fee Extension MUST provide full functionality with registries imple