Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

I believe the classification should remain at the object-level, since the concept of standard or premium is done at the object-level and not at the command level. There may be the use case where a premium domain has a higher fee for the create but has the same fee as a standard domain for the

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

> -Original Message- > From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:25 PM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WG Last Call: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/ >

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

Scott, Thanks for review the draft. My responses to your feedback are embedded below with a “JG-“ prefix. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 4/27/17, 9:29 AM, "rege

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

> -Original Message- > From: Gould, James > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:17 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; 'gal...@elistx.com' > ; 'regext@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG Last Call: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/ > > Scott, > > Than

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

Scott, There are three use cases outlined in the draft where the “validatorID” may be used, which include: 1. Use in the to indicate to the server the Trademark Validator the code originated from that the server can use to verify against the third party (e.g., Trademark Validator).

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

> the server MUST define the list of supported validator identifiers and where > the validator identifiers are used to the clients Just one suggestion for rewording: “the server MUST define the list of supported validator identifiers and MUST make this information available to clients using

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

Scott, Thanks, I believe I’ve got it. I’ve updated the draft with the following changes based on Scott’s feedback: 1. Nit on reference to RFC 7848 in section 1. 2. Added reference to for the request to create a Launch Application in section 2.1. 3. Removed the second paragra

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

Hello Roger, On 2017-04-25 23:40, Roger D Carney wrote: > Good Afternoon, > > Here is the update draft document. This should include all of the agreed > upon changes from the Chicago meeting (biggest change was the > simplification of the call). Thanks for this new version. Here are a couple o

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

I suggest you upload a revised version now. It will make it easier for folks to see the changes. The nice think about the datatracker is we can always revert to an older version if necessary. Thanks! Jim On 27 Apr 2017, at 11:46, Gould, James wrote: Scott, Thanks, I believe I’ve got it

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-04.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions of the IETF. Title : Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Authors : James Gould

Re: [regext] WG Last Call: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/

Done. Let me know if there is any additional feedback to incorporate into the draft. Thanks, — JG [cid:image001.png@01D2BF62.D7A15360] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Jam

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

Roger, Thanks for posting the updated draft and the draft looks very close to what was discussed in Chicago. Below is my feedback to the latest version: 1. Section 3.1 “Client Commands” a. It may be useful to include an enumerated list of commands that is extensible like what was