Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type-00.txt

Andy, I provide feedback embedded below. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 7/24/23, 5:17 PM, "Andrew Newton" mailto:a...@hxr.us>> wrote: Caution: This email originated

[regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl Feedback

Gavin, Ahead of the REGEXT meeting, I did a fresh review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl and below is my feedback: 1. Section 2 "Extension elements" * Nit - "(b) in and commands, that the client wishes to remove a previously set value, in favour of the default value.". I would revis

[regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Tom & Jasdip, Ahead of the REGEXT meeting this afternoon, I did a review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search and below is my feedback: 1. I believe that the search for ips and autnums should have been included in RFC 9082 from the start, but I’m glad that you’re looking at add support in

Re: [regext] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-22

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:44 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: > > * In Sections 12.2.3.2 and 12.2.4.2, the individual entries are run > together into one big blob. Could we get blank lines between them, or > maybe put each in its own subsection if necessary? Or make it a table? > > [ML] I know that the

[regext] draft-newton-regext-rdap-simple-contact Feedback

Andy & Tom, Thank you for posting draft-newton-regext-rdap-simple-contact. I prefer having a simple contact extension that meets the minimal needs for DNRs, by being capable of representing contact EPP RFC 5733 data, and the minimum needs for INRs. Below is my initial set of feedback from the

Re: [regext] [Ext] [DNSOP] Best Practices for Managing Existing Delegations When Deleting a Domain or Host

Feedback my own and not from IANA. If I recall correctly, the approach I took when building an EPP server several years ago was: * allow deletion of domains with linked subordinate hosts – there is no need to prevent this if the registrar can simply rename the subordinate hosts and free th

Re: [regext] [Ext] [DNSOP] Best Practices for Managing Existing Delegations When Deleting a Domain or Host

> Host rename always seemed a dangerous operation Why so? -- Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-

Re: [regext] [Ext] [DNSOP] Best Practices for Managing Existing Delegations When Deleting a Domain or Host

Not being an EPP expert, it seems to me that if the below works (which it seems to have?), it addresses pretty much all concerns in a very reasonable way. Would there be any reasons for not making this the recommended practice? Peter On 7/25/23 14:39, James Mitchell wrote: Feedback my own and

Re: [regext] [Ext] [DNSOP] Best Practices for Managing Existing Delegations When Deleting a Domain or Host

That a registrar can change the delegation of a domain managed by another registrar, point it to anywhere (which led to this discussion), without the consent of the registrant. As noted, I allowed renaming, but restricted it to within the existing domain boundary – the registrant trusted example