Re: [regext] Implementations of draft-wisser-registrylock?

Ulrich Wisser <ulrich@wisser.se> Mon, 20 April 2020 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@wisser.se>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034583A0C88 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wisser.se
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 ELl9Odn2JofV for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (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 E08753A0C87 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id w6so5302806ilg.1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wisser.se; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4iVE+UW5p1YnM6ZXc3P4r8XByid1h3EoknBjlmvqUAE=; b=r4KIy5Z9MR0Xoic5MbDKJ236yFNb/XTPFJ/PvK7x6y2sqXyMW0fEAxAeb/kWyb80F3 +A8RPhsj+5ONpPQUL5zO0tAvOhCem1wbl/brEx/cpuQMEXdkFRF9WaEdbOHud0oi+jjv MF4fc96KM8wlYUWo68GZIC8w/6rK3uAKOGodV4oZSA9+cCy2IxxQF5vmP5mFMH2IEQH7 9PsaLN5I0WmlL709bfsn839v2hfxiFP9j/RcSSsPlmwWSZL2xDp0nUF65pUCajC59V/R 3tHHCWuCMqZt/hU4rF7T84D5pKbzGOwlbWISo6896dXdEObfTgJNht5h3i0hlZ9+gVj/ J2+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4iVE+UW5p1YnM6ZXc3P4r8XByid1h3EoknBjlmvqUAE=; b=cWn9gvtdkZIV6K0riWSTza5MT6HI46qU3ZANtR+hy2ogN1EOkJUzV8+Kkk/TmsXnje 3AU1Qe97my2rEtsa4ESHl6gflVyBQ+xxqNv20ejkpj4J4IJO4hPfZsEnnWyc0dC441+X Ou5vErTf0nvWYyX2dO4geV1HSbqvV0t2otwndaiq7R+4pFoA2C5dcGOY2SFnTPds1sOg v9q7xnxJjjPfZyEnxOotWoI/15FBwax8cKszL2JaicFXhFIJinZlHhBEdCrk8veYz2gh JHYp8yu+e0ojLvnulucrnRJ2ybZdEub9j07PsHympoxufG+8ogDLIQWJ9YVyeXwFJYo4 461A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pub4fCB6V0Df8TN3YEtWUmIA4NV3Smzhjo4dTX/dsYxc8m1CNj1V sMkOLLzy4BzU4ihYLtNIuBegyoXZoJ3BSWAxK440Tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIt5/Bucd6GA4NQDzCGMQtu57m2GDJSa8o3YFbg3BGfTfe7Dt/iE08ipT1k4mh/qZjpIxhzYw3XBvAUH6XW7sg=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:9e0b:: with SMTP id q11mr14967639ili.277.1587388012576; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE075B24192F8@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> <20200327094413.73386d66@nbbrfq.loc> <CAJ9-zoWU3JMdvGMRKzOy4HWnZ0wDqO-Z83sNm2qADPNKiX0pBg@mail.gmail.com> <0b5331a907a34efbbfe1cc1873404a7d@verisign.com> <CADyWQ+FJrpYanQ-6UgAj9H1WDO6h5P9-1N3hPyCe0b2XdTrFGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FJrpYanQ-6UgAj9H1WDO6h5P9-1N3hPyCe0b2XdTrFGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Wisser <ulrich@wisser.se>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:06:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ9-zoUft5AKrwNyMZjr7VEwJR44oC-rnE_C0+2C_emVf8HR9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009c6edf05a3b8929c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/BeP6-f7oon14vhTgmJ7NNhRBACQ>
Subject: Re: [regext] Implementations of draft-wisser-registrylock?
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:06:57 -0000

Hi Tim,

thanks for reading the document. I believe the dangling sentence is an
artifact of malformatting.
It tries actually to explain the out-of-band mechanics in more detail. Next
version will fix at
least the formatting.

As I already wrote in my reply to Scott, for the in-band to be used safely
we would need to
introduce an OTP scheme to EPP.

/Ulrich

Am Di., 7. Apr. 2020 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>om>:

>
> As an end-user i've always liked the out-of-band registrar-initiated
> management of the client status.
>
> I can see a registrar offering both in-band and out-of-band to their
> clients.
>
> Also, there appear to be some dangling sentences in section 2.
>
> tim
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:57 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=
> 40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> *From:* regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Ulrich Wisser
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:28 AM
>> *To:* regext@ietf..org <regext@ietf.org>
>> *Cc:* Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>at>; Bernhard
>> Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>om>; Michael.Bauland@knipp.de
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Implementations of
>> draft-wisser-registrylock?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have made significant changes to the draft.
>>
>> Many thanks to contributions by Michael Bauland and Bernhard
>> Reutner-Fischer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find the draft at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wisser-registrylock/
>>
>>
>>
>> And please give it a review.
>>
>>
>>
>> If your registry currently offers or will offer registry lock in the
>> future I would be interested to hear how this draft fits or doesn't fit
>> your business model.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope you’re doing well, Ulrich! The mechanism described in the draft
>> isn’t one that Verisign plans to implement. We do offer a registry lock
>> service, but it doesn’t use EPP to avoid situations in which a compromised
>> registrar/sponsoring client could unlock a domain and make unauthorized
>> changes. We support registrar-initiated management of the client* status
>> values for registrar locking.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> regext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>>
>