[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Pretty much all the TLDs on the patrons list of this site use EPP https://cocca.org.nz/ which should add about 50 or so On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:37 PM Tobias Sattler wrote: > I investigated which ccTLD might run EPP a while ago based on publicly > available information. > > I don’t know if th

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Hello, You can add EPP for .ga (GABON) in the doc. They are using it now. Best Regards, Régis MASSÉ Directeur des Systèmes d'Information Directeur Technique Chief Technical Officer regis.ma...@afnic.fr M. +33 6 83 12 43 49 T. +33 1 39 30 83 45 Twitter /

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Hello, On 22.08.24 08:37, Tobias Sattler wrote: I investigated which ccTLD might run EPP a while ago based on publicly available information. I don’t know if those ccTLDs are following this list, and I cannot guarantee its 100% correctness, but maybe it helps you. https://docs.google.com/s

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Sadly that’s true for a LOT of both ccTLDs and gTLDs … Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains https://www.blacknight.com @mneylon Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal > On 22 Aug 2024, at 10:09, Thomas Corte (TANGO support) > wrote: > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use cauti

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

I agree that changing the EPP XML URIs or customizing the XML schema files, where backward compatibility is not maintained, is not EPP. I had to modify the EPP XML schemas a couple times (e.g., support I-D RGP "(pre/post)Whois" elements and the RGP RFC "(pre/post)Data" elements during a transit

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Hello Tobias, On 22.08.24 08:37, Tobias Sattler wrote: I investigated which ccTLD might run EPP a while ago based on publicly available information. I don’t know if those ccTLDs are following this list, and I cannot guarantee its 100% correctness, but maybe it helps you. https://docs.googl

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

* Changing of the EPP XML URIs or making non-backward compatible changes to the XML schema files should not be classified as EPP, since the same client software cannot be used with the server independent of the server policy differences. There are dozens of cases like this, and absolutely n

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-02.txt

> -Original Message- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 8:27 AM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap- > extensions-02.txt > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > lin

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Not following the same semantics of an specific gTLD registry that was the first to adopt Thick WHOIS is different from not following the EPP standard. I agree with Thomas that those specific examples are not EPP, but all gTLDs and most ccTLDs follow EPP to the letter. Rubens > Em 22 de

[regext] Re: a list of RDAP clients

On 8/20/24 13:46, pmev...@godaddy.com wrote: > [SAH] This is something you're maintaining, Andy? How did you manage to find them all? The genesis of it is explained at https://blog.rcode3.com/blog/a-guide-to-rdap/ The referenced paper at https://pam2024.cs.northwestern.edu/pdfs/paper-89.p

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-02.txt

On 8/20/24 09:15, Gould, James wrote: Andy, In reviewing the updates to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions, I believe that we need to reconsider the criteria for the RDAP JSON Registry values. Based on the types initially defined, the use of lowercase only values may make sense, but for the r

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-02.txt

On 8/22/24 10:19, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: [SAH] Andy, I'd very much prefer that we discuss changes like this BEFORE they appear in a working group draft. I don't necessarily disagree with the suggestions, but if we assume that a working group draft is a reflection of working group consensus i

[regext] New Version Notification for draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http-04.txt

Hi All, I just posted a new version of the EoH draft, 04. Changes are to more accurately distinguish EPP connections and sessions from HTTP connections and sessions. This has arisen from lessons learned in gaining some implementation experience. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loffredo-