Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-regext-brown-epp-ttl

+1 to adopt Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:25 AM Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: regext On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren > > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 4:54 PM > > To: regext > > Subject: [EXTERN

[regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-03

+1 On Mon, Jun 3, 2024, 7:56 AM James Galvin wrote: > The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready > for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best > Current Practice: > > Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible

[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

Re: [regext] Using RDAP as a Domain Availability Service

While I would push people towards epp check, having domain availability in an anycasted zone for DNS queries is so much more lightweight. We did this in .cc back in 1998 The registry loses the ability to measure which domains are getting looked up or measure volumes accurately, but registrars alr

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-01 draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-01

+1 On Fri, Oct 4, 2019, 2:21 PM Owen Smigelski wrote: > +1 > > > On Sep 27, 2019, at 6:40 AM, James Galvin wrote: > > > > This is a reminder to please indicate your support or comments regarding > these drafts. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Antoin and Jim > > > > > > > > On 20 Sep 2019, at 9:31, Jame

Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: availability check result depending on fee extension?

trouble of sending the wrong fee extension with a command if they were going to be sending one at all. Jothan Frakes On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:47 AM Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > Yes, to cover the corner case, avail="0" is the best response when the > client does not i

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

+1draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance looks good to me Just to be clear, since this is a 2nd WGLC, the new WGLC is for > draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12 > > Op 29 mrt. 2021, om 14:49 heeft Antoin Verschuren > <> het volgende geschreven: > > > > The foll

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

t the > content of the message is all about registry-maintenance. > > Would you please clarify your support? > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > On 15 Apr 2021, at 12:50, Jothan Frakes wrote: > > +1draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance looks good to me > > Ju

Re: [regext] A Radical Idea for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid

Great Idea, Scott. Let's call those Path A and Path B Were you envisioning that A or B were ok, or are you suggesting Path B only? I recommend that either should be possible in order to let this grow faster in adoption. If what you described in Path B could be presented as an option, leaving ro