IETF Logo Mail Archive

[eppext] draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and QLP addendum

Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl> Mon, 09 February 2015 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>
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 51BD01A1B17 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:22:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.785
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 TuWGWGxmfYn4 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1911A1A37 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:19:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id:accept-language:content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version; bh=KMz4b3FdiUW+1j/ItZrlTqkBzhqF/u1aD78tRuRS51c=; b=47Bc3OKVcnn+CZNCwRo9KZoHuwxFHJRzVrXwSevRNgHCcCqbLbGK2yikeA380d+KqiT+It/zONeaW1WT1ns+8/gmI15VH3Xz5yle7qCIfdE+Ltg6hEimaQTZ9xY9ODmdBEID22/RocQFW8hsUzLQsIn384LU/LQX6CNgkTwDzej59Zk2lOwSLJbk39Q60UDCt6AM0/5brCuFuMXowXd8kAfjDrXFBG/nBDkElpD7owBR6Am9E4uX9/w5wYtPceZPgt+9shgkGyKIim1OxzYjdK1Ergn/NCStuoZBFKyVkioOt+kTftWL1vgvuF1fTKLf73smx7ApBpXyRIguD+UvRQ==
Received: from kahubcasn01.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.73]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id t19FJU80016865-t19FJU82016865 (version=TLSv1.0 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:19:30 +0100
Received: from KAMBX2.SIDN.local ([fe80::b1fd:88d9:e136:9655]) by kahubcasn01 ([192.168.2.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:19:26 +0100
From: Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>
To: "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>, "gtld-tech@icann.org" <gtld-tech@icann.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and QLP addendum
Thread-Index: AdBEe3u+8NqS47DpRweFcBo3x2Oq6Q==
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:19:26 +0000
Message-ID: <C80127C588F8F2409E2B535AF968B768B9291E5A@kambx2.SIDN.local>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.2.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C80127C588F8F2409E2B535AF968B768B9291E5Akambx2SIDNlocal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/r4R2c_LUdbMbxWktPxsLkcsmw2U>
Subject: [eppext] draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and QLP addendum
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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:22:56 -0000

Hello,

I've got a question concerning the QLP addendum in relation to the IETF TMCH functional specification draft (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec-09.txt )

In section "5.4.1.  Domain Registration" of the IEFT draft a decision table is provided the services a registry must provide for the QLP allocation scenarios. This table suggests that a QLP registration during sunrise must be validated against the DNL list and the SURL list.

However in the QLP addendum it is only mentioned that a QLP registration during sunrise must be validated against the SURL list.

I assume that the addendum is correct, but is that a correct assumption?

Kind regards,
Rik Ribbers

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email