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

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CA61B340C for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u0MBoyBP-W39 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-f100.google.com (mail-qg0-f100.google.com [209.85.192.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BD1E1B33F7 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so3784756qge.2 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:19:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=CEdJoC+ObwdxXH8SuWTOu14RURmUZYXlaidtpOFpIo0=; b=Ck+jbZSjO6jf1aMqcZlVEaa+kRBc1iTDOyuwCROnHSMdBcbNPxoWBbHI55beoKXxFW UVSxm4ecS58sWDkFXzPPn4A8Ol9D96kzXEbFbGZCZgVJrC52S9Fa+l2Ijr2aVN0cMCkM kd2B2SaisyOso2QATi12IDWoeiBmcXqCkG1JPsydSXz+5gNPuzBf67J0VP7WNJYmD1Sm Nl02bX03qJxu8cUdhqI7O2e/msELZRMKQ6ek4d6EomsGvBuZStv0G0ktMjoePltVyZyf 46xEWHxwAvoN5mFZNLa5So8N6QuRvz9YIFXgSyGj0PkUuZ8x0heJ9ZxF3CQvupPIPe2n gxSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxtUzPlRlr1W3/wOqpwSy/X8ppiFEdsLG/UP4z8xy7BZp/toR3Y5Nu7OcfFOCDpJaiGPn6FUEH1D0m68CKwjtOqYvniQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.89.51 with SMTP id u48mr3608336qgd.61.1446668389460; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id e7sm348394qkj.7.2015.11.04.12.19.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:19:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA4KJmHt019699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:19:48 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:19:47 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase
Thread-Index: AQHRFzw+gcZCc6Iynkacb92U56WUiJ6MTdQf
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:19:47 +0000
Message-ID: <655334FD-E69C-4949-9B39-E12AA7EFA70B@verisign.com>
References: <B785119F-67E7-4B34-9995-6A6F5806DF10@antoin.nl> <C80127C588F8F2409E2B535AF968B768BA20273B@kambx1.SIDN.local>, <563A6547.40308@elistx.com>
In-Reply-To: <563A6547.40308@elistx.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/EP58JD2iGDGLD9nUXcqbrCB7Edo>
Cc: Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>, Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>, "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:19:52 -0000

Yes, this is stealing my thunder from the meeting, but I agree that they need to be moved up together.  I would actually move these two as well as the smd draft up together.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 3:06 PM, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> 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?
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 7/21/15 10:28 AM, Rik Ribbers wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> I finished the review. There is one issue that I raised earlier that (imho) needs some more clarification in the document.
>> 
>> See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00585.html
>> 
>> 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
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec/). 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.
>> 
>> Gr,
>> Rik
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
>> Sent: maandag 20 juli 2015 22:02
>> To: eppext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> 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:
>> 
>>   https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-05.txt
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> - --
>> Antoin Verschuren
>> 
>> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
>> M: +31 6 37682392
>> xmpp:antoinverschuren@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
>> EppExt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>