Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase

"Gould, James" <> Thu, 05 November 2015 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC53D1B2B82 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:23:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CETJiEQnP9Hj for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06B991B2B81 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgad10 with SMTP id d10so5155283qga.3 for <>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:23:12 -0800 (PST)
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=QvUGxvuDJ4RgTLGVqRY8zl9e+aD+6Nx1L3kjzqJj6do=; b=I52jupuapCW74kqg24OuJdW8aqbjS+FuEwClXvEPn3wH1sfedo+WETXV5b0l89xF5O ui/PBrf2Wn72LEP4vIHGX50F3kc9xo92SnsYJMxMH0SWvTgbimSMlYLB/GSwQc+KKwwy f/ikED/M5NsbXxvQEB6rD8CiYm+kJFDNrh5WbhU5L81RzijAkUmT92BhKpBoK51jyvdo v6W9Li2Snrzu78Q7T2GaoXBCA//3RlSl8lEMBWhDEZLqabeKJjWak74vjhMLcOwUaArw 1r67VglB3riTXF/m8uoROH0T1yodP+auwafaHiITohfUHHTx4HGjdmSmLgQV8JvqISiN zG2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmg/e1Aw+u7YGBpDOvZTep6AKw6Mdx3oQAxIqF4VzcxYDqF3qs5aSgPt+X6JpEAhIRIFZ7tpuHn/w3RdloPHnDzuj77Fg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d133mr7827767qhd.19.1446729791792; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id s72sm732623qkl.9.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexchm01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA5DNAOM009347 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:23:11 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:23:10 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: James Galvin <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase
Thread-Index: AQHRFzw+gcZCc6Iynkacb92U56WUiJ6Nv5KA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 13:23:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <C80127C588F8F2409E2B535AF968B768BA20273B@kambx1.SIDN.local> <>
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_3C657106B3AB40E3B14547B1208A481Dverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Rik Ribbers <>, Antoin Verschuren <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:23:16 -0000


For some reason I didn’t see Rik’s latest posting ( ).

I replied to the original launchphase + domain check thread with the following ( ):

We also support the standard check form for all launch phases.  The launchphase draft extends the domain mapping to define new forms of checks targeted for the launch phases, but there is no intent to disallow the use of the standard availability check defined in the domain mapping.

Considering that this is an extension, it is additive to what it extends.  There is nothing in the draft that is meant to change the behavior of the vanilla availability check as defined in RFC 5731.  I don’t see the need to add clarifying text on what happens when the extension is not used, since the extension only defines what happens when the extension is used.  If the WG agrees that the proposed clarifying text is necessary it can be added.

Feedback is welcome.





James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Nov 4, 2015, at 3:06 PM, James Galvin <<>> wrote:

This issue raised by Rik Ribbers has not been addressed by the working group.  Would the authors, and any one from the working group please comment?  Rik's suggestion seems reasonable to me but I would like to see confirmation from the authors.

With this suggestion address this document is ready to move forward. However, it is dependent on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-func-spec/, so I'd like to hold it in the working group and submit these two documents together.

In addition to the change suggested above, we need a document shepherd to move this forward.  Would anyone like to volunteer?


On 7/21/15 10:28 AM, Rik Ribbers wrote:

I finished the review. There is one issue that I raised earlier that (imho) needs some more clarification in the document.


We have interpreted section 2.3 different then the other implementers with respect to the normal or vanilla (as Alexander suggested) domain check.

Having fully re-read the draft I am not sure if this issue should be addressed here or in the lozano functional specification
( However the last is expired and not getting any attention. In this draft there are several requirements concerning Domain Registration, there are no requirements concerning Domain Availability. So if nothing is specified the vanilla domain check can be used.

However section 2.3 suggest one MUST provide a launchphase...... so what to do....

My suggestion is to add a few wording (slightly different then my previous proposal):

** old **
The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the client to define the target launch phase of the command.

** new **
The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the client to define the target launch phase of the command when using this EPP extension.


-----Original Message-----
From: EppExt [] On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
Sent: maandag 20 juli 2015 22:02
Subject: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase


This is the starting of the WGLC on the Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP).
There was extensive discussion on the mailing list, an we believe the outcome is incorporated in the document and is ready for WGLC.
The current version of this document can be found here:

We'll have a 1,5 week period for comments, closing on Friday, 31 July 2015.

During last call the chairs are looking for a document shepherd for this document.
If you're interested, please contact the chairs. The document authors can not be the shepherd.


- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392

EppExt mailing list

EppExt mailing list<>