Re: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Mon, 25 November 2013 12:25 UTC
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2BA1AD93D for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 05BlP32Vo8tz for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og110.obsmtp.com (exprod6og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D5D1AD94A for <provreg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob110.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUpNBrTsEYh8AxBMXmmKu/5cXKfJC0hKh@postini.com; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:25:19 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id rAPCPGQg025895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:25:16 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:25:16 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, "provreg@ietf.org" <provreg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
Thread-Index: AQHO56bdz22Yz70R50Sqrygz07mTEJo1QUGfgACfk2A=
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:25:15 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492EDFFA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <20131122171808.16557.95825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492EAD28@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <201311251044260557202@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201311251044260557202@cnnic.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492EDFFABRN1WNEXMBX01vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPP discussion list <provreg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/provreg>, <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/>
List-Post: <mailto:provreg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg>, <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:25:24 -0000
Don't be surprised if there is no meeting scheduled for London. Meetings are used to sort out challenging issues in real time. If there are no challenging issues, there will be no meeting - and creation of a registry frankly should not be that challenging. On the milestone: we already have one document that describes a proposal for the registry. The WG will have to decide to accept it or not, but IMHO there aren't too many ways to do this and the existing document can be changed to address any deficiencies. It really shouldn't take all that long! This comment* from Barry Leiba of the IESG provides an interesting counter to the comment made below: "Only comment: the proposed milestone for the registry doc seems sadly pessimistic. Why should the registry take so long to define?". Scott * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-eppext/ballot/ From: Jiankang Yao [mailto:yaojk@cnnic.cn] Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:45 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext) Great! it is a big step to move to a WG. So we have a WG meeting in London meeting, March, 2014. The goal is to have "May 2014 - Extensions registry document to IESG " It is a little ambious. ________________________________ Jiankang Yao From: Hollenbeck, Scott<mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com> Date: 2013-11-23 01:20 To: provreg@ietf.org<mailto:provreg@ietf.org> Subject: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext) Yay! Scott -----Original Message----- From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:18 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: eppext WG Subject: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext) A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-12-02. Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Assigned Area Director: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com<mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>> Charter: The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) was a work product of the IETF Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) working group. EPP was published as a Proposed Standard (RFCs 3730, 3731, 3732, 3733, and 3734) in March 2004. It became a Draft Standard (RFCs 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, and 4934) in May 2007, and a Standard (Standard 69; RFCs 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, and 5734) in August 2009. It is the standard domain name provisioning protocol for generic top-level domain name registries that operate under the auspices of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It is also used by a number of country code top-level domain registries. Domain name registries implement a variety of business models. The difference in these models made it very difficult to come up with a "one size fits all" provisioning protocol, so the provreg working group made a conscious decision to focus on a minimal set of common functionality. EPP was designed to be extensible to allow additional features to be specified on an "as needed" basis. Guidelines for extending EPP were published as Informational RFC 3735 in March 2004. The provreg working group was chartered to develop EPP, but not these additional extensions. The working group was closed in 2004 after producing a number of Proposed Standard specifications. As registries began to implement and deploy EPP the need for extensions became real, and the user community found itself facing a situation in which multiple extensions were being developed by different registries to solve the same basic problems, such as registering additional contact information. EPP is widely implemented by generic top-level domain name registry operators. It is also used by multiple country-code top-level domain name registry operators. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has an active program to delegate a large number of new generic top-level domains. EPP will be used to provision those domains, and new registry operators are expected to develop additional protocol extensions. With no way to coordinate the development of these extensions, the problem of non-standard extension duplication by multiple operators is only expected to become worse. The goal of the EPP Extensions (eppext) working group is to create an IANA registry of EPP extensions and to review specifications of extensions for inclusion in the registry. It will accomplish this goal in two steps: 1. Develop a specification for a registry of and corresponding registration procedures for EPP extensions. One proposal is documented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-epp-ext-reg/. 2. Produce a small number of extensions based on existing Internet Draft documents and use the IANA registration process as developed in 1 to register those extensions, as follows: DNSSEC key relay: draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/) Internationalized domain names: draft-obispo-epp-idn (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-obispo-epp-idn/) New TLD launch phases: draft-tan-epp-launchphase (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-epp-launchphase/) Trademark Clearinghouse: draft-lozano-tmch-smd (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-smd/) Note: draft-tan-epp-launchphase has a normative dependency on draft-lozano-tmch-smd. Only the development of the registration process and the publication/registration of the four extensions noted above are in scope for the working group. The working group can choose not to publish or register one or more of the extensions noted above, but it is out of scope to work on other extensions. Milestones: May 2014 - Extensions registry document to IESG Jul 2014 - DNSSEC key relay extension to IESG Jul 2014 - New TLD launch phases extension to IESG Sep 2014 - Internationalized domain names extension to IESG _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list provreg@ietf.org<mailto:provreg@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
- [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning … Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [provreg] WG Review: Extensible Provisioning … Patrik Fältström
- Re: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provision… Bernie Hoeneisen
- Re: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provision… Jiankang Yao
- Re: [provreg] FW: WG Review: Extensible Provision… Hollenbeck, Scott