Re: [ire] Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDomain:trnData
"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Mon, 13 April 2015 17:40 UTC
Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C1B1AD0A3 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 vhWCA35pK8Wf for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f97.google.com (mail-qg0-f97.google.com [209.85.192.97]) (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 AF9891AD0A0 for <ire@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgaj5 with SMTP id j5so3366932qga.1 for <ire@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:40:48 -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=jIYXqbuwOiM70pe2VHU1eFCZPliw/rbqR14TAFfCmYE=; b=DrTM5XL4/8tjobsyOjx/yDPgT5OfEIjdNfINEPKuhaTwUJc8VFyiCUTkW2Cs4ZMm9F pu2PbC7U1qI6CHacAVq7kj6NSKms3IrBuDUbLJ6EIH/Z040Li8wFOSn4+3zOCE7FM9Vk 1YtXZksBthOYUj4O7UcyF+x/chXitV76gyCi94si74DPKm56xELwNLIZEqdHUEaF+wWH v9KN3iuEYso4XP0v4V8V66NjKPKxkf76PM0DwOBwvzLpIHmW4+dMaNPE/pKzAghCazDu +VlKx+EXgYKYQAP4e+7vWPAedF9mkL/mkbMzsbxkMiT/mzoHlpyOy1L7D46tnMuQuVNZ aL0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNsFFOk4laaEGaRZsXmzsH8seUH6o8PqIpt7O0e77YDwcQLopsTMPJcaTBmqmFeN+TD2aUsELvI4v14sQpgFYtpEzu+w==
X-Received: by 10.55.20.10 with SMTP id e10mr32445870qkh.36.1428946847871; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q8sm3451050qcg.2.2015.04.13.10.40.47 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3DHejVP016561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:40:45 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:40:46 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDomain:trnData
Thread-Index: AQHQdKt7mJRusszepU2ciAF6AY0yvp1Le6YA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:40:45 +0000
Message-ID: <8CA76639-AA2E-4E05-93F0-10E5CCD86AB4@verisign.com>
References: <CAC1BbcTqa+1q0RLGZJTUG9mqM+2P_9jma8=oT_6ha6QzxnQqkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC1BbcTqa+1q0RLGZJTUG9mqM+2P_9jma8=oT_6ha6QzxnQqkw@mail.gmail.com>
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_8CA76639AA2E4E0593F010E5CCD86AB4verisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ire/DVKFTUaHKkWnR6T6NQ-9wtWBQ6E>
Cc: "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>, "provreg@ietf.org" <provreg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ire] Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDomain:trnData
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <ire.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ire/>
List-Post: <mailto:ire@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:40:51 -0000
Hi, I would go with what is defined in draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping as authoritative. The question raised is whether the rdeDomain:trDate, rdeContact:trDate, rdeHost:trDate elements for XML and the rdeCsv:fTrDate element in the “domain”, “host”, and “contact” CVS files should be removed. These elements match up to what is supported in the EPP RFC’s. For example in the EPP Domain Name RFC 5731, the domain info response includes the optional domain:trDate element that is separate from the elements returned in a transfer query response. Although the domain:trDate element could be derived from the transfer query response domain:acDate element, from a data model perspective they may be separate attributes and subsequently the data escrow should support both the rdeDomain:trDate, rdeContact:trDate, rdeHost:trDate elements in the XML model and the rdeCsv:fTrDate element in the CSV model. Thoughts on this? On the status of the drafts, Barry Leiba, the IETF Applications Area (app) Area Director (AD), agreed to sponsor the draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow and draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping drafts for standards track. Barry will review the drafts and his feedback will be incorporated into subsequent versions of the drafts. We will be asking for Implementation Status information similar to section 6 of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase, so if you do have Implementation Status information that you would like incorporated into draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow or draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping, please forward it on. If you have any additional feedback, please send it to the IRE (ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>) mailing list. Thanks, — 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 11, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com<mailto:rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, I have a FIXME in my code to implement trDate in rdeDomain, i.e. the Domain Escrow data. It seems the dnrd-objects-mapping-05 still specifies rdeDomain:trDate but the changelog of registry-data-escrow-06 seems to mention that rdeDomain:trDate was replaced by rdeDomain:trnData. Who's right? I suggest to fix this by removing the redundant rdeDomain:trDate from the DNRD as per the changelog in the RDE draft. thanks, Long version below. Now i (still) cannot find the official RFCs that describe either Registry Data Escrow or DNRD Objects mapping So let's assume that the now expired drafts still are the base of the escrow schema. AFAICS the latest versions currently are: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-06 resp. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05 (please correct me if i'm wrong). The RDE-06 draft 11.2.7 and 11.2.8 suggest that trDate of domains and contacts were removed. Yet, the DNRD-05 does mention trDate for domain, host and contact (didn't look at the CSV parts) I am not affected by host-transfers, but if the trDate of domains and contacts is removed (in favour of the trnData) then the same should be done for hosts, too. Please fix. TIA,
- Re: [ire] Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDo… Gould, James
- Re: [ire] Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDo… Bernhard Reutner-Fischer