IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ire] New version (4) of the spec and new draft on DNRD (1)

Francisco Obispo <fobispo@isc.org> Fri, 14 December 2012 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fobispo@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1741221F8AFB for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NvKq6P3p1oiX for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E89721F8AFA for <ire@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BFA5F9C15; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:29:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org)
Received: from [192.168.255.120] (c-24-7-39-79.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.7.39.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 748CD216C3D; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:29:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fobispo@isc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Francisco Obispo <fobispo@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <148D81EC-63B1-4C71-B630-B50686BE82B4@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:29:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FE93F5AE-2F6D-462F-983E-6FEC12224681@isc.org>
References: <C41D7AF7FCECBE44940E9477E8E70D7A0D7437F6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <148D81EC-63B1-4C71-B630-B50686BE82B4@isc.org>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Luis Muñoz <lem@isc.org>, "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ire] New version (4) of the spec and new draft on DNRD (1)
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:29:32 -0000

On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Francisco Obispo <fobispo@isc.org> wrote:

>> You can't simply add text that doesn't exist and then
>> include that text in a data escrow draft that is based on your
>> interpretation. 

BTW, the fact that Arias, and Noguchi decided to use the EPP format as a guideline, is plausible, but if you are correct but what is needed is the registrar/client and not the individual user information, then the requirement in the escrow needs to reflect what is needed and not what the EPP protocol says.

I'm just trying to say that one protocol is not bound to the other, and if that was the case, we would not be discussing XML over CSV or viceversa.


Francisco Obispo 
Director of Applications and Services - ISC
email: fobispo@isc.org
Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email