[regext] [EPP] Several commands under the same

We got a message from a registrar saying that having several commands under an element is legal: ... ... and that "it works with all the other registries". XML schema is difficult to read but RFC 5730, section 2.5 uses the singular to talk about the command. So,

Re: [regext] [EPP] Several commands under the same

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 07:52:48AM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > An example of such tool is xmllint —schema $schemafile $inputFile > . Xmllint is pretty available in any distribution. Using James Gould's example: % xmllint --noout --schema wrapper.xsd epp.x

[regext] About conformance to RFC 8521

While RFC 8521 says "RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST indicate conformance with this specification by including an rdapConformance [RFC7483] value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0", it is funny to note that apparently not one of the registries under

[regext] EPP and DNAME records?

[This comes from a discussion in DNSOP about a possible future .internal.] Some TLD include DNAMEs (for instance .cat and .asia) but apparently only as parts of an IDN bundle. Nevertheless, we could imagine a registry accepting registrations implemented as a DNAME record, not NS records. There is

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:52:26AM +, Feher, Kal wrote a message of 71 lines which said: > Why wouldnt we have DNAME at the apex of the registered name? Ie > controlled by the domain owner. It would force the domain holder to have nameservers configured for this name. It is always a hassl

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 02:26:00AM +, Feher, Kal wrote a message of 34 lines which said: > certainly in breach of current gTLD requirements for zone contents. There are not only ICANN-regulated registries. Besides the root (my personal use case), there are ccTLD and also all the registrie

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 04:53:39PM +, Pat Moroney wrote a message of 769 lines which said: > Although I know of no TLD that has a model without a standard fee, I > can imagine one. Is it even possible? Since the space of all possible names is near-infinite, you need a "standard" fee for n

[regext] News of draft-ellacott-historical-rdap?

draft-ellacott-historical-rdap seems cool and already has running code at APNIC. But it is also dangerous, since you can no longer erase data (it is mentioned in the Sceurity Considerations section). It was briefly discussed at IETF 99 in Prague

Re: [regext] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:03:39AM -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote a message of 63 lines which said: > Is there a registry for codes like 2306? Either way, I couldn't > figure out if this is a new code or already assigned one. No registry, but 2306 was created by RFC 5730, which is a normative r

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:00:06PM +0800, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > we could imagine a registry accepting registrations implemented as a > DNAME record, not NS records. > > Would it make sense to create an extension (may be an addition to RF

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 03:46:28PM +, Gould, James wrote a message of 72 lines which said: > Thanks for posting the draft for review. And thanks for the detailed review. > The following is my initial feedback: Most of it has been incorporated

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 08:26:46AM -0500, John Levine wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > It can coexist with anything other than CNAME, NS/DS, or another > DNAME, and you need A, , and MX records at the DNAME to do what > many people wrongly believe that DNAME does. See RFC 6672, s

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 08:01:02PM +0100, Patrick Mevzek wrote a message of 77 lines which said: > as soon as we add one RR through EPP, as James stated there is the > question about all others. Yes, and I clearly do not want to go into that: too complicated for me. > There is even already a

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:24:16AM +0800, John Levine wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > > it is draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root. Some people remarked that we > > don't even have an EPP mapping for DNAME. It is not the biggest > > obstacle to draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root but this new draft >

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 08:01:02PM +0100, Patrick Mevzek wrote a message of 77 lines which said: > * I have mixed feelings about section 10. > Specifically you state: > A trust relationship MUST exist between the EPP client and >server, and provisioning of DNAME delegation MUST only be don

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Patrick Mevzek wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > AFAIK there is no (not yet?) IANA EPP server to which TLD operators > are clients, Not between IANA and the TLD managers, but EPP is used between IANA and Verisign

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records?

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 02:31:37PM -0500, John Levine wrote a message of 38 lines which said: > I continue to believe that allowing DNAMEs in TLDs is a bad idea, > and so I see no reason to spend further effort on this extension. Really, I do not understand, and I would appreciate explanation

Re: [regext] first reason not to do EPP and DNAME records?

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 07:31:54PM +, Ulrich Wisser wrote a message of 99 lines which said: > IANA sends root updates to Verisign via EPP. In that light, we > would need an EPP extension before IANA can adopt a policy to allow > DNAME in the root. Yes. That's the entire point. (And it wa

Re: [regext] first reason not to do EPP and DNAME records?

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 03:05:10PM -0500, John R Levine wrote a message of 64 lines which said: > > In that light, we would need an EPP extension before IANA can > > adopt a policy to allow DNAME in the root. > > I don't understand why you think it would have to be in that order. One of the

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records, second reason not to do it

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:19:54PM -0500, John R Levine wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > in the root (add DNSSEC to taste): > > ... > evil. NS ns1.evilsrv.wtf. > evil. NS ns2.evilsrv.wtf. Does not work for the use case of draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root since you cannot delegate new nam

Re: [regext] EPP and DNAME records, how to do it

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:38:59AM -0500, John R Levine wrote a message of 40 lines which said: > New tiny zone on [abc].iana-servers.net: > > evil. SOA whatever > evil. NS a.iana-servers.net. > evil. NS b.iana-servers.net. > evil. NS c.iana-servers.net. > evil. DNAME empty.as112.arpa. OK, I

Re: [regext] IETF 101 agenda

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote a message of 170 lines which said: > Session II, Regular WG meeting session. > Wednesday 2018-03-21 15:20 - 16:50 > 6. AOB draft-bortzmeyer-regext-epp-dname "EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation" has now one implementation (

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-harrison-regext-rdap-mirroring-00.txt

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 04:20:56AM -0800, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote a message of 44 lines which said: > Title : RDAP Mirroring Protocol (RMP) > Authors : Tom Harrison > George G. Michaelson > Andrew Lee

[regext] EPP and rate-limiting

Sometimes, some clients are too talkative and, for instance, try too often to grab a domain. I'm not sure of the best error code to return when such behaviour is detected. HTTP has 429 "Too Many Requests" (RFC 6585) but I don't find a proper code in EPP. Any idea?

[regext] [RDAP] rdapConformance mandatory?

I've found a RDAP client which crashes, apparently when there is no rdapConformance in the answer. RFC 7483 seems very liberal. It does not say that rdapConformance is mandatory. Any opinion, backed by chapter and verse of RFC 7483, about wether this member is really necessary? _

Re: [regext] Last Call: (Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response) to Proposed Standard

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:01:59PM -0700, The IESG wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG > (regext) to consider the following document: - 'Registration Data Access > Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response' >as Prop

Re: [regext] Last Call: (Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response) to Proposed Standard

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:10:21PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote a message of 35 lines which said: > the .it RDAP server provides searches only to authenticated users. Yes, but I was interested in the test bed (which hosts only a subset of the data). Also closed? __

[regext] [check] always prohibited when avail="1" ?

RFC 5731 3.1.1 seems to clearly prevent a to be sent when avail="1". But RFC 9095 6.1.1 has an example with a for avail="1". So, is it really forbidden to send a to the client when the domain is available but you want to send some extra conditions?

Re: [regext] Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) WG Virtual Meeting: 2021-10-20 CHANGED

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 02:32:17PM -0700, IESG Secretary wrote a message of 44 lines which said: > The Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) WG will hold > a virtual interim meeting on 2021-10-20 from 14:00 to 15:00 UTC. ... > Please find below the call details for the Joint IETF REGEXT a

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-flanagan-regext-datadictionary

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 09:27:43AM -0500, James Galvin wrote a message of 18 lines which said: > This is the formal adoption request for DNS Data Dictionary: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-regext-datadictionary/ OK for adoption, since this is a real issue and this

[regext] "Direct" delegations and EPP

[This is not an actual project, more the result of a discussion at the coffee machine. So, if you have actual work to do, feel free to go to the next message] A registry can ["can" in the technical sense, legal issues are out of scope] "delegate" domains by publishing the relevant records (A,