Protocol Action: 'Mark and Signed Mark Objects Mapping' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-06.txt)

The IESG <> Mon, 14 March 2016 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E0612DAD0; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Mark and Signed Mark Objects Mapping' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-06.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:18:41 -0700
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:18:41 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Mark and Signed Mark Objects Mapping'
  (draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ben Campbell, Barry Leiba and Alissa Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

This document describes the format of a mark and a digitally signed mark
used by trademark holders for registering domain names during the
sunrise phase of generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs).

Review and Consensus

This document received the WG's attention and some comments throughout
the life of the WG. One of the major comments is that this document
should include the EPP extension registration in the section of IANA
consideration. Another one is some recommended signing algorithms should
be mentioned in the security section.  None of the consensuses were
tough to reach. Thus there is no disagreement about this document.

The Document Shepherd did a thorough editorial and technical review of
the document, and resolved any issues brought up during WGLC. The
Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breath
of the reviews. This document has also had a number of discussions in
tmch-tech working group of ICANN. Some SMD file tests were carried out
during discussion and full examples are listed in the document. The
document has support of the WG. There are at least four known
implementations of production level and one implementation in test.


Ning Kong is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible Area