To add my 2 cents I agree with Scott here given what the spec says. We've
(Swedish internet foundation) interpreted it in our implementation to mean that
we shouldn't
allow the change to go through.
// Eric Skoglund
From: regext on behalf of Hollenb
Hi Victor.
We at .se and .nu recently changed our authcode implementation and for that we
did have a look around to see what other registries were doing.
I don't think we came across anyone looking at a PKI-based approach and to
second what Scott said such an approach would probably find it
hard
Based on the call to action in the meeting yesterday to get involved I'll add
my +1 as well (and +1 to the changes proposed by James).
// Eric Skoglund, The Swedish Internet Foundation (.se & .nu)
From: regext on behalf of Gould, James
Sent: 06 May 2
Did a quick readthrough this evening, found some minor nits.
In the paragraph:
"Some domain registrars, acting as EPP clients, have rename host
objects to subdomains of "as112.arpa," such as "empty.as112.arpa"
[risky-bizness-irtf]. This practice has been observed in use."
"rename" should be
+1
From: James Galvin
Sent: 24 June 2024 15:26
To: REGEXT Working Group
Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03
The Chairs have decided to extend this WGLC last call for two weeks, one more
week from the date of this message. There has o
After Jim Goulds presentation on implementing EoH and EoQ I was inspired to
start hacking on the two protocols in our own EPP server implementation, while
doing so, some questions about EoH popped up.
In the EoH draft there is a couple of MUSTs for the client when sending a
request:
- The GET
Hi Jim,
I support the adoption of both. I'm willing to contribute and review text.
// Eric
From: James Galvin
Sent: 03 February 2025 15:05
To: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and
draft-loffredo-re
