response in one way or another.
That would allow a registrar to query the balance whenever needed
without any side effects
and even enable it to automate alerting in case the balance drops under
a certain level.
Thanks for your consideration.
Martin
--
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Appl
l its poll messages? Are the
change-poll messages delivered just without the
element or are these poll messages retained
until a change-poll enabled EPP-Session polls them?
Thank you.
Martin Casanova
On 29.01.2018 20:40, Gould, James wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I published the revised draft
likely
to be evaluated than the field.
On the other hand also more clients would potentially fail for this
reason and stop working until this case is handled. Since this is not
client initiated maybe it is not appropriate to return 2307 in this case ?
Martin Casanova
--
SWITCH
Martin Casano
also be an out
of band communication with our registrars about this.
Martin
-- SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
martin.casan...@switch.ch, www.switch.ch
Working for a bette
describes the reason for the error. The language of the
response is identified via an OPTIONAL "lang" attribute. If
not specified, the default attribute value MUST be "en"
(English).
Regards.
Martin
SWITCH
Martin Casanova,
login command with the missing schemas to have the benefits of
unmarshallable and validated data.
The only downside is that the element would not
contain a client-provided element as stated by RFC-5730 but maybe that
is acceptable.
Best regard
Martin
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain
are allowed as per default, eventually with an optional mechanism to spare
certain clients from receiving messages they actually don't care about, in
order to drive the progress of using EPP extensions.
I will participate this afternoon remotely. See you soon.
Marti
transmitted in the .
To me it falls also under the “unhandled namespace” problem.
Martin Casanova
Von: regext [regext-boun...@ietf.org]" im Auftrag von "Patrick Mevzek
[p...@dotandco.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juli 2018 18:02
An: regext@ietf.org
B
Patrick
To be clear the domain info response will be sent just without the DNSSec part.
Therefore a not DNSSec interested registrar will just not see the DNSSec
configuration but all the rest of the domain info resData. I don't see a
problem with that.
In our case a registrar currently needs t
-D
Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 21:08, Martin Casanova wrote:
> To be clear the domain info response will be sent just without the
> DNSSec part. Therefore a not DNSSec interested registrar will just not
> see the DNSSec configuration but all the
Hello Jody
Von: Jody Kolker [jkol...@godaddy.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juli 2018 21:48
An: Martin Casanova; Patrick Mevzek; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: RE: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D
Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07
. Juli 2018 21:58
An: Martin Casanova
Cc: Patrick Mevzek; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D
Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)
Hi,
are we really sure this is a problem worth solving?
At .se registrars (with very few excep
.
Martin
Von: Ulrich Wisser [ulr...@wisser.se]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Juli 2018 02:27
An: Martin Casanova
Cc: Patrick Mevzek; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D
Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)
Hi Martin,
as was said
artin
Von: Ulrich Wisser [ulr...@wisser.se]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Juli 2018 15:25
An: Martin Casanova
Cc: Patrick Mevzek; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D
Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)
M
is welcome :)
Thanks,
Martin Casanova
---
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
martin.casan...@switch.ch, www.switch.ch
Working for a better digital world
On 01.10.2018 16:34, Gould
have the resources or the need
to process the new extensions in an automated way. In the mean time they
can be assured that nothing bad happens, no client breaking, no login
denied...
Thoughts ?
Martin
---
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switz
ption 2 and 3
> are simply more complex approaches to what is currently defined within
> draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces. There is absolutely no
> need to define a new XML namespace and structure to include the unhandled
> extension information in the response. I vi
392
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
---
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41
egext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
>
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/m
nt could be more
structured to make it easier for the registry to parse the different
fields and to give a hint to the registrar what information should be
provided.
Therefore I suggest child elements for example
Operating System
Client technology (eg. java)
Client so
;
>
> JG
>
>
> cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30
>
> *James Gould
> *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *rege
gn.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *Martin Casanova
> *Date: *Monday, April 8, 2019 at 6:28 AM
> *To: *James Gould , "regext@ietf.org"
>
> *Subj
than 100 failed
logins occurred, flowed by a successful login only a week later ? I
guess not since more than a day has passed already right ?
Thanks for clarifying.
Martin
---
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 26
t;
>
> cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30
>
> *James Gould
> *Distinguished Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *regext on behalf of Ma
EPP schema already allows for
> authorization to happen, not only by providing the domain authInfo but
> instead the authInfo of a related contact (and its ROID to be able to
> pinpoint it).
>
>
>
> And I seem to remember at least one registry to allow that. So
> definitively rare but not 0 either.
>
>
response will never include the
actual since we only store a hash of it for security reasons.
A Domain Info Command with the Element entirely omitted will
always be answered with 1000.
Thanks and merry X-Mas!
Martin Casanova
---
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box
2019 13:24:29
An: Martin Casanova; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: RE: [regext] How to handle Domain Info Command with empty authinfo/pw
tag in command?
Martin, you also have to consider client identification and authorization when
trying to determine an appropriate response code. I can see returning
___
Von: regext im Auftrag von Gould, James
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2019 14:39:08
An: Martin Casanova; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [regext] How to handle Domain Info Command with empty authinfo/pw
tag in command?
Martin,
I believe option 2 in case 2 is the best approach, but
Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From: *regext on behalf of Martin Casanova
>
> *Date: *Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:51 AM
> *To: *"regext@ietf.org"
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] How to hand
e a change.
>
--
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
martin.casan...@switch.ch, www.switch.ch
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
htt
t@ietf.org"
> *Subject: *draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces Intellectual
> Property Disclosure Confirmation Request
>
>
>
> Hi Jim Gould and Martin Casanova –
>
>
>
> As the document shepherd for draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces, I
> need to ask w
d be formulated more precisely explain this eg:
'The original usage of defined in RFC 5730 returning
client-provded elements in unsuccessful command is redefined by this
document as to return unhanlded namespaces'.. or so..
Thanks again and stay healthy.
Martin Casanova
On 22.01.21 20
autorenewal and communicate that event
with a poll message? Does it contain the fee ?
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks
Martin
--
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
martin.casan
Thanks a lot Mario, Thomas and James for your helpful feedback and
example that point me all to the same solution!
One more question: We would only be using a snippet of the fee extension
and its namespace in this poll message but not fully implement it.
Therefore should we include it in t
-server owner. (no registrar involved)
- Deleting the DS/KeyData when the nameservers changes? (This would
raise further questions..)
- Support ticket of registrar and manual deletion by the registry ?
- ...
Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
Martin
--
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain
3 The
object does not exist" but this is not applicable to dnssec is it?
Thanks!
Martin Casanova
--
SWITCH
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
martin.casan...@switch.ch,www
36 matches
Mail list logo
