IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [eppext] [IANA #814915] INSERT “Extensible Provisioning Protocol Mapping: Defensive Registration"

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Thu, 02 April 2015 15:52 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 5ED0C1ACD3C for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] 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 D7HR78XWqzPs for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f98.google.com (mail-qg0-f98.google.com [209.85.192.98]) (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 D12CF1A854D for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so4784802qgd.3 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
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:mime-version; bh=abhVULQBHmgVxKDcP/OFcaUmNicqBVb0fVCbzWx8Sh0=; b=ma1fdjRfn6rD4LT0G1giN4kwhDevH3zy8dAmLLPTj0++NhXaAF6YE4vxIE9LJlcbNo Z6IbjVsl2ceY20IObxB7lUXM45G6WZ2P7CEudseGIy8tEPMTg563EL7lnbWRYrz5bXx8 p8HN0qhpAbTysFoka3TUwNsheygJ2lmCqHR5zfI0pgIgRnuwgCalWbJl2mrNESTJXUhW DN48hpMGA96xXYv5V0xTHe0gN7hYVk50hG+edVDWT8r+hM1lckNXi/xw647iw8nN+lxm YO6x9Jkqq3PlBi+tHlhPj5Mv0tzPMEsJL/YUUmT3hr5RA4fauCei8OsGt52Vb2UqqLnc cHAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWGpYoXL37x1O1wXkVs1RQMWvDsDBzTEDdplbLnPihBLTrJmycu1Vu/KwKfT7so/U4hb4UOHfBCcgDwpLlCSiOAeMgOg==
X-Received: by 10.55.43.220 with SMTP id r89mr38374371qkr.27.1427989931099; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm1283158qcf.1.2015.04.02.08.52.10 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Apr 2015 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t32FqANq028530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:52:10 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:52:10 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W2VwcGV4dF0gW0lBTkEgIzgxNDkxNV0gSU5TRVJUIOKAnEV4dGVuc2libGUg?= =?utf-8?B?UHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIFByb3RvY29sIE1hcHBpbmc6IERlZmVuc2l2ZSBSZWdp?= =?utf-8?Q?stration"?=
Thread-Index: AQHQZW9rf1ruLlFsH0mXQVj8L+wbyZ0qVaQQgA/YBICAAAR9gA==
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:52:09 +0000
Message-ID: <BC34B80F-CB9B-44E6-B61C-E7580FF5EF7D@verisign.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-814915@icann.org> <7F30D89F-28F5-47C1-B9B8-C6B2D032F45C@verisign.com> <rt-4.2.9-13014-1427128946-1178.814915-9-0@icann.org> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F49F89AE6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE075467991BC@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at>
In-Reply-To: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE075467991BC@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_BC34B80FCB9B44E6B61CE7580FF5EF7Dverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/Gnp3Nl5aC60yhFHnpbhoeNbsJGM>
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] =?utf-8?q?=5BIANA_=23814915=5D_INSERT_=E2=80=9CExtensibl?= =?utf-8?q?e_Provisioning_Protocol_Mapping=3A_Defensive_Registration=22?=
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:52:14 -0000

Alex,

Thanks again for the detailed review and feedback.  My feedback is included below.


—


JG


[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Apr 2, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at<mailto:alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>> wrote:

Hi,

I've finished my review of the extension registration request, and my (nit-picking) comments are as follows:

- The previous comment about the "VERISIGN PROPRIETORY INFORMATION" does apply to the document as well.


Same response on the copyright notice.

- section 3.1.1 mentions "fully qualified names of the Defensive Registration objects", but then lists the name of the objects in
the example as "doe" and "john.doe". Understanding this is for the ".name" TLD, those objects don't seem to be "fully qualified", as
they are missing the TLD (assuming these are objects related to domain names..). I do understand that Section 2.1 defines the format
of the Defensive registrations, but the relation to "fully qualified" remains unclear..


Fully qualified for a defensive registration object means inclusion of all of the labels for the defensive registration object, so that would be one label (e.g. “doe”) for a premium defensive registration and two labels (e.g. john.doe”) for a standard defensive registration.  The TLD is not included with the definition of “fully qualified” for defensive registration objects.  This detail could have been more clearly defined within the draft.

- For the IDN case, the document could clarify the format of the Defensive registration "name" element. It's pretty obvious from the example
what's intended, but not specified in text.


To clarify the defensive registration name is the A-label, which as you point out could have been explicitly defined in the text.

- I didn't formally check the XML Schema definition.

tia,
Alex


-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
“Extensible Provisioning Protocol Mapping: Defensive Registration"

Document Status:
Informational

Reference:
http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/defensive-registration-mapping.pdf

Registrant Name and Email Address:
VeriSign Inc., epp-registry@verisign.com

TLDs: .name

IPR Disclosure: None

Status: Active

Notes: None
-----END FORM-----

_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
EppExt@ietf.org<mailto:EppExt@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email