IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [eppext] [IANA #814914] INSERT “Extensible Provisioning Protocol Mapping: Email Forwarding"

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Thu, 02 April 2015 15:02 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 D16B61A044D for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:02:37 -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 o66aNNSXeLtp for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f99.google.com (mail-qg0-f99.google.com [209.85.192.99]) (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 EEE701AC3D0 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgaj5 with SMTP id j5so963122qga.1 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 08:02:34 -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=NAu2bXPk0PBx7GsmuPM21vL5XQd9jvn8AAFBxcDDHuE=; b=h0DWkeBNgcgvtXhq+w2VEZvgLjV+nW/PH2JFDD5Sc8P7bvGP6yEwwrErqSknz9RiRH p8XiuOHueqW1wYuM9CFJaM3vRtXaP2KzBOvvgAGl6L/XYjUgZploBtjxZtPc7DKSZiU+ mZ1VAFIiCGuvOc3rcQxqZ3YmJAEYfjMECc/G+960gXaW3dDNbjPbittX8pQ60hLftlRH v0v+IF3+bAcbre5Em0z2DyDQG1r7sV9EcvwiVvUqjs9R/6y4zBGtxE6POsxPjTjLRu47 WK6j/9cTlTu0X5zOIpvf2Mj3S9bY8kC27zzhw198UX+QOs55lzUPrz3kJq2/rOUNOFRa 8LRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlR4ExCUbT6SoZH2v/jp5FJ+JxllxydjmzsVyhYwIPQCVjJZequXa0mjGAY7EtrC4GlcSLNOsLi4InLshxc6KvZ+Uvh8g==
X-Received: by 10.55.55.75 with SMTP id e72mr51156630qka.30.1427986954097; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hx9sm1237801qcb.3.2015.04.02.08.02.33 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Apr 2015 08:02:34 -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 t32F2XRo022529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:02:33 -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 11:02:33 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W2VwcGV4dF0gW0lBTkEgIzgxNDkxNF0gSU5TRVJUIOKAnEV4dGVuc2libGUg?= =?utf-8?B?UHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIFByb3RvY29sIE1hcHBpbmc6IEVtYWlsIEZvcndhcmRp?= =?utf-8?Q?ng"?=
Thread-Index: AdBtHj8J6wWovVNkQq+7o8PhIPcoIQAWVU+A
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:02:33 +0000
Message-ID: <879EFA0C-1E05-4D55-8D2E-218F4D84FFAA@verisign.com>
References: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546799141@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at>
In-Reply-To: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546799141@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_879EFA0C1E054D558D2E218F4D84FFAAverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/oRG0m8W5mGfnv26LOzDvO-KdqFE>
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] =?utf-8?q?=5BIANA_=23814914=5D_INSERT_=E2=80=9CExtensibl?= =?utf-8?q?e_Provisioning_Protocol_Mapping=3A_Email_Forwarding=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 15:02:38 -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 10:06 AM, Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at<mailto:alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>> wrote:

All,

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

- My previous concerns about the "VERISIGN PROPRIETORY INFORMATION" paragraph apply to this document as well.


Yes, this is the standard copyright notice that will be included with all of the custom Verisign extensions.


- The references to the EPP specifications are outdated


This extension was created and implemented a long while back, so the references could be updated.

- In Section 2.1, are servers REQUIRED to validate that email forwarding names actually comply to RFC2822?

At the time this extension was implemented RFC 2822 was the correct RFC.  This could be updated as well.


- In Section 2.3, service messages are REQUIRED to be sent to clients. However, the document does not specify the format of the actual messages. I assume there is no such formal definition then?


You are referring to the service message for pending actions, which takes the same text from section 2.3 of the domain mapping (RFC 5731).  What is missing is the description of the pending action poll message, as described in section 3.3 “Offline Review of Requested Actions" of the domain mapping (RFC 5731), that is supported by the XML schema of the extension.  For .NAME, we never implemented any of the pending actions or used the pending action poll message supported by the XML schema of the extension.  I can make note of the missing section 3.3 “Offline Review of Requested Actions” for completeness.

As a summary, the specification is very well written. I have not formally checked the Schema definition.

tia,
Alex


-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
“Extensible Provisioning Protocol Mapping: Email Forwarding"

Document Status:
Informational

Reference:
http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/email-forwarding-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