Re: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt

"Gould, James" <> Mon, 28 December 2015 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972E41A037A for <>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.283
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bObIgFKlxRId for <>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::264]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF4AB1A0379 for <>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i20so7979559qgd.2 for <>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :content-type:mime-version; bh=M7i72QcIPn76LJBM7OwuPsm34Xio5P7QXbQEickywzE=; b=g/m96N9wvnuJZxWKhWqO4xUr+ZAKBC7ydCQCqEdFIxyYgWcULaHEOfn9ZD0N9uwwRy dxfON8rdcAoyvtX01S6KvGVDbhUqVGttz8O79aRs+vlJRliHCd4RrqiQowVhtE+MVDIP VrNfJxFUCoAFsPOSKv5rTkiqrP883yuHfcJw6r8il8py4zV/Zq2soW/Au1DeJrtRvVsY AdBhm7QhGjGyTRWW2ZnvPn6HiRd1M6uLMmZz49ahuPNAtcTy5JR77ViP2M1f8Z4S67/g byEaq+ezInpHnSxAJbA4tqxFe+417nBB8cUxgqmOFiOU51XLRlX6N5LYDSPVrtnt5LGp mqhw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=M7i72QcIPn76LJBM7OwuPsm34Xio5P7QXbQEickywzE=; b=WWjvqd/7HmnPcxoxNkunbF8HwMa97qNQRvjegeiZ3XWviv9PlcOU3lVBdJ5vtoRwVg dM88h1L8DaLknCzg2QzC6Jq033XWkVuD7G4mKfUOgr2uOImELbmHZh1l8ftdlakBe7RB Rsu0u2O0ZdIC6Ni9wThPFm8utEIj4hcMavacRVoxEe5zufmOtsMMoSeoSfybHBKn3v+L YlYfzay2/SQ8/6yw+pXjgAIoePs6kFx7Fe8mQRLUGLDQ60/PXFxGkYEFU8Lrhic2uHdb WnUJv/V99ynXEUPKjwkAiNm96iwGnm3PoeT0JhGc+T158T0wo/tzWD0LQypAonovi9G1 KZlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkKDr+LPjsm1qJLYhckhtfkGe4LuMeNXpwB29MQ8UeYjWN106wRKfXpC/8dGpXBTCK6UgaDc/FEQDB/NBpayYoZmnsRWOVbn2DvaxWqhOlKSk8q8CM=
X-Received: by with SMTP id h130mr74997625qhd.47.1451320724593; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id u191sm7420963qka.2.2015. (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexchm01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBSGcgCl016373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:38:40 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Linlin Zhou <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRQY40+9agQdGoNUWL0RRuGTv8uw==
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:38:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_218EF3279DD04ED7A0C7024BE2D6D29Cverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, lidaiming <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:38:51 -0000


My feedback is included below.

We've considered this issue and found that BCP of HTTP API may be more proper.

I assume that you mean SCP or HTTP.  Do you plan on submitting a draft that describes the protocol for transmitting the verification material for verification?  draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping provides a mechanism to submit the verification material via EPP, which is the most straight forward mechanism.

Actually only the registrant need to be verified according to the regulation in China.

Yes, but since the contact mapping does not have the concept of type, the verification extension will apply to all contacts independent of the domain to contact relationship.  The contact verification status has interplay with the domain status that could be clarified in the contact extension, the domain extension, or both.

Yes, I think the poll command should be extented too.

draft-gould-change-poll can be used to extend the info response of the contact or domain to provide the client with the information associated with the server side verification change.

If only the registrant should be verified, I think a domain will not have different statuses contatcts.

Yes, the focus is on the registrant, but the registrant's contact verification status relationship with the domain status would be good to understand.  Also, the drafts should provide more detail into the relationship of the contact verification statuses of the other contact types (admin, tech, and billing).  This could be left to server policy, if the goal if for the drafts to be used more generically.  For example, what happens to the domain if it references contacts (registrant, admin, tech, and billing) with the supported set of verification statuses on a domain create or domain update?

From my rough understanding, a extensible protocol should support multiple applicable profiles.

Do you intend on targeting these drafts to meet only the China verification rules or to meet a more general set of verification rules?  If you intend on just meeting the China verification rules, then you can add more specific text to describe the China verification policies, and if you intend on meeting a more general set of verification rules, you may want to consider including the concept of verification profiles.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Dec 24, 2015, at 4:31 AM, Linlin Zhou <<>> wrote:

Hi James,
Thanks for your feedback.
Linlin Zhou

From: Gould, James<>
Date: 2015-12-23 23:52
To: Linlin Zhou<>
CC:<>; lidaiming<>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Fw: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt

Thanks of the quick reply, my feedback is included below.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer<x-msg://8/>

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Linlin Zhou <<>> wrote:

Hi James,
Thanks for your review. I have following feedbacks about your questions.
1. The drafts specified the query commands only, which are now implemented in some registries in China, to fufill most of the critical requirements . We are not going to add transform extension in EPP drafts at present as this function of upload proof materials has been developed and implemented via HTTP. Maybe after a sufficient test of using EPP transform commands to transfer large files, we could consider standardizing this part in EPP extension.

Since they are informational drafts it makes sense to include what is currently implemented, but it does not provide a complete solution for verification.  My recommendation is to publish your HTTP API as informational drafts to cover the transform side of the solution or extend the transform commands in your EPP extensions.  As noted previously on the list, there is no technical reason that EPP cannot be used to submit the verification material.

[Linlin] Thanks for your suggestion. We've considered this issue and found that BCP of HTTP API may be more proper.

2. Actually in verification process, there are typically two phases, domain verification and contact verification. Domain verification is aimed to check whether a domain is reserved or prohibited. Contact verification is to check the facticity of a person. So These two drafts are seperated.

There is added complexity in separating them since the aggregate verification (domain and real name) impacts the domain and not the contact.  In EPP contacts are managed separately from the domains, so putting the verification on the contacts raises some additional questions:

  1.  Do all contacts need to be verified (registrant, admin, tech, and billing), since contacts themselves don’t have the concept of type?

        [Linlin] Actually only the registrant need to be verified according to the regulation in China.

  1.  What is the expected behavior when a domain references a blocked or unverified registrant?
     *   Does it impact the status of the domain and if so how?
[Linlin] I think the simple process is to verify the domain, the verification status of a domain is pendingVerify. If it is a banned domain, after the period of pendingVerify, the domain will be deleted, no need to further check contact. If a domain passes verification but the registrant is unverified, the status of the domain maybe changed to serverHold and the status of the contact is failed. Updated proof materials are waited to be resubmitted.
     *   How does the client get notified of the domain status change?  We’re leveraging draft-gould-change-poll for this purpose.

                    [Linlin] Yes, I think the poll command should be extented too.

  1.  What happens when the domain is updated to reference a different set of contacts that have different statuses?

        [Linlin] If only the registrant should be verified, I think a domain will not have different statuses contatcts.

  1.  What happens to the domain when the contact statuses change?

        [Linlin] Please see the above answer.

Some of this behavior can be left to server policy and not explicitly defined in the protocol, but it would be good to know how you see this could work.

3. Yes, it is specific to China currently. But we don't exclude the possibility to make them as more general drafts if some other countries also have the verification regulations. Daiming Li mentioned to add some content about verification background as well. I think this is a good suggestion and a quick update will be posted soon.

In the verification code draft we defined the concept of a verification profile, which enables the server to communicate the applicable profile and for the client to explicitly specify the desired verification profile to apply.  You may want to consider some sort of similar concept.  The question is whether a client can have more than one applicable profile (province or state within a country), which may not be the case in China but could be elsewhere.
[Linlin]  From my rough understanding, a extensible protocol should support multiple applicable profiles.

Linlin Zhou

发件人: Gould, James<>
发送时间: 2015-12-22 05:16
收件人: lidaiming<>; Linlin Zhou<>;<>
主题: Re: [eppext] Fw: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt

I have a few high level questions:

  1.  In reviewing draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification and draft-wang-eppext-domain-verification, I see only extensions of the query responses (check and info), but I don't see extensions to the transform commands to submit the verification material.  Do you plan on adding extensions to the transform commands in the existing drafts or creating separate drafts for that purpose?
  2.  What is the relationship between the draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification and draft-wang-eppext-domain-verification drafts?
  3.  Is draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification and draft-wang-eppext-domain-verification only applicable to China verification or is being proposed as more general drafts?  I assume based on the Informational track that it's specific to China, but there is no reference to China in either draft.



From: EppExt [<>] on behalf of lidaiming [<>]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:41 AM
To: Linlin Zhou;<>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Fw: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt


Thanks for your efforts.

Since this draft together with draft-wang-eppext-domain-verification-00 is intended to describe the very EPP extensions relating to verification mechanism in China, you might include their background and usecases in these drafts, to shed light on their applications and implementations.


KNET Technologies

发件人:"Linlin Zhou" <<>>
发送时间:2015-12-21 09:49
主题:[eppext] Fw: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt

The draft of contact verification has been submitted, which is now applied in practice in some registries of China. Any comments are welcome.

Linlin Zhou

From: internet-drafts<>
Date: 2015-12-21 09:36
Subject: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Verification Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping
        Authors         : Linlin Zhou
                          Di Ma
                          Wei Wang
                          Ning Kong
                          Xiaodong Lee
                          James Galvin
Filename        : draft-zhou-eppext-contact-verification-00.txt
Pages           : 17
Date            : 2015-12-20

   This mapping describes an verification extension to EPP contact
   mapping [RFC5733].  Specified in Extensible Markup Language (XML),
   this extended mapping is applied to provide additional features
   required for the provisioning of contact verification.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There's also a htmlized version available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at<>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

I-D-Announce mailing list<>
Internet-Draft directories:
EppExt mailing list<>

EppExt mailing list<>