Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http-02.txt

I agree that a redesign would only make sense if it can do more afterward than before. Otherwise, it would only produce costs and effort without delivering any real added value. I may not doubt whether the attractiveness can be an added value, but I would at least question whether that is a suf

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

+1 to adopt it Best, Tobias > On 25. Apr 2023, at 22:54, Antoin Verschuren > wrote: > > This is a formal adoption request for Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > mapping for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL) values: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-regext-brown-epp-ttl/ > > Pleas

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-hollenbeck-regext-epp-delete-bcp

+1 > On Jan 29, 2024, at 16:17, Antoin Verschuren > wrote: > > This is the formal adoption request for Best Practices for Deletion of Domain > and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP): > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-epp-delete-bcp/ >

Re: [regext] EPP Transport Service Discovery

+1 During my 14-year tenure on the registrar side, where we implemented almost every gTLD and many ccTLDs, I always felt well-informed by registries if they intended to make substantial changes. While this feature seems nice, I don’t know if the effort is worth it. Best, Tobias > On 20. Mar 2

[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

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/spreadsheets/d/1IMk5TBzeoJTOwDJfQ-I50Kztwr3bipdjcLKy1e

Re: [regext] Multiple REGEXT Sessions at IETF Meetings

Hi Roger, I am new to this as I only attended ICANN meetings so far, but if it is available via remote participation then I would attend attend. Best regards, Tobias > On 31. Jul 2017, at 20:50, Roger D Carney wrote: > > Good Afternoon, > > I just wanted to start (continue) the discussion ab

[regext] Registry Maintenance Notifications for the EPP

before asking for support and/or adoption. We think that we reached this point. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/ If you have any thoughts, suggestions, ideas, etc., please do not hesitate. Thank you, Tobias Tobias Sattler Chief Information Officer

Re: [regext] The REGEXT WG has placed draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

It will be fixed in the new version by the end of this week. Tobias > On 26. Mar 2018, at 15:49, Mario Loffredo wrote: > > Dear, > > it seems to me that maint:end element is wrong in both the examples of Poll > response (pages 7 and 9): > > 2017-04-30T06:00:00Z > 2013-10-22T14:25:57Z > > >

Re: [regext] list of documents to consider for working group adoption

Hi Jim, Even if only the the top 5 have to get adopted, please add Registry Unavailable Domain Report https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report/ just for the record. T

Re: [regext] DOODLE: select your documents

Hi Alex, Thank you very much for your email. I do understand your point. The original idea behind RFCs is, of course, for the benefit of the Internet community. What you can question about certain available drafts - and I'm not just referring to my own. However, nowadays most domain registries

Re: [regext] DOODLE: select your documents

Hi Alex, I think we're more or less on the same page. Just so we don't misunderstand each other: It's not that we or I don't appreciate the work on policies or even want to deliberately avoid them. However, they essentially refer to framework conditions only and not to explicit technical impl

Re: [regext] DOODLE: select your documents

Just to round things up ;-) We had talked to the registries about our proposals from the beginning. It quickly became clear that they would never implement anything that was not RFC. Which is why we had to make these submissions at all. It would be a real feat to say now that these are still dr

Re: [regext] DOODLE: select your documents

Hi everyone, After seeing the result of the vote, I, as a representative of a domain registrar, must express my serious concern about the RDAP Reverse Search document. A reverse search enables third parties to query RDAP, among other things, so that all associated domains can be queried using

Re: [regext] Registry-Registrar Reporting

Hi Roger, Thank you for your email and the summary. It was great to see so many people attending the last ICANN meeting, the CPH TechOps session, and the joint meeting with REGEXT. As one of the authors of the current version of the Reporting Repositories – we deliberately avoid the Registry s

[regext] draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance

Hi everyone, Happy New Year! I spoke with Jim Galvin regarding this document (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sattler-epp-registry-maintenance/), and it will be offered for adoption by the working group soon. As part of the adoption we need a document shepherd. If you are interested in

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-yee-regext-simple-registration-reporting

+1 > On 8. May 2020, at 15:42, Roger D Carney wrote: > > +1 on adoption > > > From: regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren > > Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 8:36 AM > To: regext > Subject: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: > draft-yee-regext-simple-registration-reporting > > Notice: This email is

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis

+1 > On 15. May 2020, at 20:24, Owen Smigelski > wrote: > > +1 > >> On May 15, 2020, at 7:49 AM, Roger D Carney > > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on >> behalf of Mario Loffredo > > >> Sent: F

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis

+1 > On 16. May 2020, at 12:45, Maurizio Martinelli > wrote: > > +1 > >> Il giorno 15 mag 2020, alle ore 18:06, Gustavo Lozano >> mailto:gustavo.loz...@icann.org>> ha scritto: >> >>  >> +1 >> >> From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on >> behalf of Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@g

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03

+1 > On 2. Oct 2020, at 22:55, James Galvin wrote: > > The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission > to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer/ > > This WG last cal

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03

+1 > On 2. Oct 2020, at 22:52, James Galvin wrote: > > The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission > to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces/ > > This WG last call wi

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03

+1 > On 2. Oct 2020, at 22:57, James Galvin wrote: > > The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission > to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/ > > This WG last cal

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-02.txt

Hi Joseph, Hi Jim, Thanks for updating this draft. Some thoughts and comments from my side: General thoughts This document is intended to be informational. Therefore, I think it is better to avoid the word “standard” in the text. Because it would seem to be a de facto standard. I think that so

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-05.txt

ra...@ietf.org > <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>" <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org > <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Draft

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-05.txt

Hi Jim, We addressed your feedback and submitted the new version. Thanks, Tobias > On 1. Dec 2020, at 15:58, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Thank you for your swift feedback. > > We will go through it and make the adjustments where needed. > > Best, > T

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-05.txt

Just to let you know, we will prepare a new version (07) because we forgot to change as discussed, and do a review before submitting it. Tobias > On 8. Dec 2020, at 09:08, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > We addressed your feedback and submitted the new version. >

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-05.txt

of > elements in Section 2.3”. > Section 4 “Formal Syntax” > I would replace BEGIN with and END with . > i. This > change was requested by the IESG with the Login Security Extension > (https://tools.ietf.org/html

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-05.txt

Hi Jim, We addressed your feedback and submitted the new version 07. Thanks, Tobias > On 9. Dec 2020, at 08:37, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Thank you for your additional feedback. We are currently preparing a new > version, and will incorporate that too. &

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-09

+1 > On 4. Jan 2021, at 15:40, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > > The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission > to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/ > > This WG las

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-11.txt

rotocol (EPP) > Authors : Tobias Sattler > Roger Carney > Jody Kolker > Filename: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-11.txt > Pages : 22 > Date: 2021-02-19 > &g

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-02.txt

Hi Joseph, Thank you for the update. Please find my comments inline. Best, Tobias > On 22. Feb 2021, at 23:57, Joseph Yee wrote: > > Hi Tobias, > > Many thanks for your feedback. Please see comments inline > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:44 AM Tobias Sattler

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai

+1 Tobias > On 16. Mar 2021, at 15:18, Mario Loffredo wrote: > > I support adoption. > > Best, > > Mario > > Il 15/03/2021 14:19, Antoin Verschuren ha scritto: >> This is a formal adoption request for “Use of Internationalized Email >> Addresses in EPP protocol”: >> >> https://datatracker.

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

Thanks Michael and Jim. I’ve made the adjustment on GitHub for your review. https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

ld > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > From: Tobias Sattler <mailto:satt...@united-domains.de>> > Date: Tuesday, April 6,

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

update after WGLC. > Thanks, > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > Fro

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

Hi Jim, I understand your point. Just a thought: From a different perspective, wouldn't partial not automatically include "none" too? So, if you set maintenance to partial, then something could happen or not. If you know that nothing is going to happen, then the status partial would still be ok

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

> > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > On 4/7/21, 10:10 AM, "Tobias Sattler" wrote: > >

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

Hi everyone, Thank you for your feedback. We have updated the draft on GitHub: https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

Thanks, Michael. Fixed the typo, and added another missing lang attribute. I am fine with setting it to unbounded. Any other thoughts on the mailing list? Tobias > On 8. Apr 2021, at 17:31, Michael Bauland wrote: > > Hi Tobias, > > On 08.04.2021 17:20, Tobias Sattler wrote:

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt

ment. I understood the > reasoning behind it and therefore I'm fine with it. > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <h

Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

Thanks, Joseph. Please see our comments inline. Tobias > On 11. Apr 2021, at 18:25, Joseph Yee wrote: > > Hi Antoin and everyone, > > I reviewed the -12 draft and support the publication. > > Two (very) minor changes suggested: > > (1) > Section 3.3 > > The OPTIONAL URI to detailed mainte

Re: [regext] 2nd WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

Thanks, Antoin. Please note that I am going to release v14 to address Jim Gould’s feedback to raise the XML namespace from 0.3 to 1.0 after successful WGLC. Tobias > On 19. Apr 2021, at 15:27, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > > Working group Last Call for this document ended last Monday. > We are h

Re: [regext] doc shepherd comments for draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-14

Thank you, Jim. I have prepared a new version already and ready to do another update to address your points. If that doesn’t break the process. Please see my comments inline. > On 18. Jun 2021, at 22:14, James Galvin wrote: > > As document shepherd I have reviewed: > > https://datatracker.ie

Re: [regext] doc shepherd comments for draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-14

Thanks, Jim. We published a new version to address your feedback. Tobias > On 19. Jun 2021, at 02:49, James Galvin wrote: > > Thanks for the quick response. > > One comment inline. > > > > On 18 Jun 2021, at 16:52, Tobias Sattler wrote: > >> Thank yo

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03.txt

Hi Joesph, Thanks for this update. I reviewed the latest version, and have some feedback: The header on page 2 and following contains "Abbreviated Title” instead of "Simple Registration Reporting”. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL

Re: [regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

Hi Murray, Thank you very much for your feedback. We have prepared a new version (v16) on GitHub (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-03.txt

e also some unused and obsolete RFC references in the draft. Best, Tobias > On 13. Jul 2021, at 17:02, Joseph Yee wrote: > > Hi Tobias, > > Please see comments inline > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 3:04 PM Tobias Sattler <mailto:satt...@united-domains.de>> wrot

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-simple-registration-reporting-04.txt

Hi Jim, Hi Joseph, On Jim's item 4, I understand that there may be different approaches and preconditions for a producer to provide such reports; however, this is an informational draft and not on standards track. What do you think about framing Section 3 as Example Reports instead? That way, y

Re: [regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

da, I'm OK approving > its update during the embargo period. (I'm also fine just waiting if there's > no hurry.) > > -MSK > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:01 AM Tobias Sattler <mailto:satt...@united-domains.de>> wrote: > Hi Murray, > > Thank yo

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Predefined Placeholder Email Value

Hi Jim, I am not into all details, but why not using an email adress, such as e...@example.com? My understanding of RFC2606 is, that you can use example.com/org/net for that purpose, too, as they are reserved TLDs. empty.as112.arpa has no MX record, too, therefore, I don‘t get the advantage of

Re: [regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

The new version (v16) is now online on datatracker. Best, Tobias > On 16. Jul 2021, at 13:03, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Thanks, Murray. > > We are not in a hurry. We will do the update next week then and look forward > to the next steps. > > Best, > Tobias >

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Predefined Placeholder Email Value

> > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > From: Tobias Sattler <mailto:satt...@united-domains.

Re: [regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

ot; > (1x), "" (5x), "" (1x), "" (1x), > "" (1x), "" (1x), "" (1x). In > 4.1.3.2, "the maintenance list" should be something like "the list of > maintenance items", consistent with the paragraph before it (2x

Re: [regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance

ck. We will wait on other last call feedback before updating on datatracker. Tobias > On 28. Jul 2021, at 08:19, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Thanks, Murray. > > We will take this into account in the upcoming update. > > Tobias > >> On 28. Jul 2021, at 06:46,

Re: [regext] Adoption of draft-gould-regext-rdap-redacted Document

+1 > On 9. Aug 2021, at 18:04, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote: > > I support the adoption > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 10:03 PM Jody Kolker > mailto:40godaddy@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > Hello RegExt Group Members, > > > > Thank you for the feedback received on the mailing list and at IETF-111

Re: [regext] Last Call: (Registry Maintenance Notifications for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard

Hi Murray, We addressed the point on the XML schema by changing the URI as suggested; and explained our reasoning behind the “maint” abbreviation. The IANA experts want to get back to us as soon as they have new information. If there are no other change requests, we are ready to release an upda

Re: [regext] Last Call: (Registry Maintenance Notifications for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:19 AM Tobias Sattler <mailto:m...@tobiassattler.com>> wrote: > Hi Murray, > > We addressed the point on the XML schema by changing the URI as suggested; > and explained our reasoning behind the “maint” abbreviation. > > The IANA experts

Re: [regext] Last Call: (Registry Maintenance Notifications for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard

at 08:53, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Hi Murray, > > We made the change on GitHub and provided the IANA experts the link asking if > this is fine for them. They said they would check that and get back to us. > > Best, > Tobias > >> On 20. Aug 2021, at 00:57,

Re: [regext] Last Call: (Registry Maintenance Notifications for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard

Thanks and done. Best, Tobias > On 27. Aug 2021, at 09:03, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Sounds good to me. If we nailed it here, then v17 is ready to go onwards. > > -MSK > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 5:07 AM Tobias Sattler <mailto:m...@tobiassattler.com>> w

Re: [regext] Transfer of signed domain to registrar that does not support DNSSEC

+1 As registrar you should be able to deal with EPP regardless if you offer the services. A support ticket to delete this records is nice-to-have. > On 2. Sep 2021, at 12:00, Kristian Ørmen > wrote: > > Hi Martin > > Other registries just requires to handle DNSS

Re: [regext] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17

Hi Harald, Thank you for your feedback. We will take a look and get back to you soon. Best, Tobias > On 13. Sep 2021, at 10:14, Harald Alvestrand via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand > Review result: Almost Ready > > I have reviewed this document as part of the ARTART re

Re: [regext] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17

Hi Harald, Thank you for your swift feedback. We have incorporated the changes on our GitHub repository (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt

Re: [regext] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17

Hi Harald, Just checking, are the changes on GitHub fine for you? Thanks, Tobias > Am 13.09.2021 um 15:06 schrieb Tobias Sattler : > > Hi Harald, > > Thank you for your swift feedback. > > We have incorporated the changes on our GitHub repository > (https://github

[regext] Registry Maintenance Notification - New Version prepared

Hi Murray, We have prepared a new version (v18) on GitHub (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt). The new version addresses the feedback from Harald (ARTART). We also got the go-ahead from the IANA experts. We can do this

Re: [regext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17: (with COMMENT)

Hi Erik, Thank you for your feedback! We have addressed both raised issues (please see inline) and updated our GitHub repository (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt). Hope that is fine for you. We will do the update al

Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17: (with COMMENT)

Hi Benjamin, Thank you for your review, comments, and pull request on GitHub. We have added our replies inline below and updated v18 on GitHub accordingly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best, Tobias > On 2. Oct 2021, at 04:15, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker > wrote: > > Benj

Re: [regext] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17

Hi Joe, Thank you for your review and comments. We have added our replies inline below and updated v18 on GitHub (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt

Re: [regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17: (with COMMENT)

Hi John, Thank you for your review and comments. We have added our replies inline below and updated v18 on GitHub (https://github.com/seitsu/registry-epp-maintenance/blob/master/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance.txt) accordingly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best, To

Re: [regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-17: (with COMMENT)

s shown). Or the “for which” > that I suggested can be deleted — either change makes it correct, I prefer > the “for which” form but it’s all good. I apologize if I introduced this bug > myself with the “for which” suggestion! > > Regards, > > —John > >> On Oc

Re: [regext] Registry Maintenance Notification - New Version prepared

at text before > publishing version 18. > > - -- > Antoin Verschuren > > Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL > M: +31 6 37682392 > > > > > > >> Op 22 sep. 2021, om 22:48 heeft Tobias Sattler > <mailto:m...@tobiassattler.com>> het volgende

Re: [regext] Registry Maintenance Notification - New Version prepared

gt; consideration before we move it along. > > -MSK > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 6:07 AM Tobias Sattler <mailto:m...@tobiassattler.com>> wrote: > Thank you, Murray. > > We have updated it to v18 and looking forward to moving on. > > Best, > Tobias > >

Re: [regext] Registry Maintenance Notification - New Version prepared

Hi Murray, We double-checked and did a final update. From the authors' perspective, we are good to move on. Thanks, Tobias > On 10. Oct 2021, at 09:55, Tobias Sattler wrote: > > Hi Murray, > > Thank you. While we have addressed all comments in version 18, we will &g

[regext] EPP Extension Object Search

Dear Working Group, Jody and I wrote a draft on EPP Extension called Object Search. We want to spin this idea with this group because using EPP for searching is more secure than RDAP by reducing a threat vector. https://github.com/seitsu/epp-object-search/blob/main/draft-sattler-epp-object-sear

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http-00.txt

Hi Mario, Thanks for this draft and your feedback on the other threads. While I understand the need for standardization (and I support that), even if EPP over HTTP is not widely used, I wonder if the future could not be REST API considering that new APIs are mostly built that way? I don’t sugge

[regext] ICANN on Quantum Computing and the DNS

FYI https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-031-11feb22-en.pdf ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext