[regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Thu, 22 August 2024 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rubensk@nic.br>
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 B7E0AC14F6FD for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_FAIL=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VeLarJb6e-h for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [200.160.2.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8C3EC14F6FC for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:3a::195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clone.registro.br (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E5A7AE91 for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:27:40 -0300 (-03)
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:27:34 -0300
References: <CAN8C-_L+tQMHo203Nd4ehfZkW8FrCpv+tm+Gp4OX30XBdQPf-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn2bdS_o4QxvVV=bGMgg8-b4Hrrd8YDSFkW9G_97MXM-wA@mail.gmail.com> <DA00E316-BC8E-4892-9AE4-5E465ECBCD7A@tobiassattler.com> <2562a7d2-913c-4fb1-a63b-cd386166e1cb@knipp.de> <9362ECFE-0F7F-41B6-B4CB-E9A8604DB879@blacknight.com>
To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9362ECFE-0F7F-41B6-B4CB-E9A8604DB879@blacknight.com>
Message-Id: <5A4C18BA-D0BB-4932-B031-5E8C05E0A580@nic.br>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51)
X-Rspamd-Server: clone.registro.br
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49E5A7AE91
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [3.50 / 15.00]; DMARC_POLICY_REJECT(2.00)[nic.br : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,reject]; R_SPF_FAIL(1.00)[-all:c]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; LOCAL_WL_FROM_IP(0.00)[2001:12ff:0:3a::195]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22548, ipnet:2001:12ff::/32, country:BR]; FORCE_ACTION_SPF_FAIL(0.00)[reject]
X-Rspamd-Action: no action
X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=multimap; Matched map: LOCAL_WL_FROM_IP
Message-ID-Hash: 54Q3ERVMQWN2YJ2Q7SLJMBT3CJUV3NWP
X-Message-ID-Hash: 54Q3ERVMQWN2YJ2Q7SLJMBT3CJUV3NWP
X-MailFrom: rubensk@nic.br
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-regext.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: ccTLDs using EPP
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/NlPphISUmI7Z8qzogwaLbaOMnPY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:regext-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:regext-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:regext-leave@ietf.org>

Not following the same semantics of an specific gTLD registry that was the first to adopt Thick WHOIS is different from not following the EPP standard. 

I agree with Thomas that those specific examples are not EPP, but all gTLDs and most ccTLDs follow EPP to the letter. 



Rubens


> Em 22 de ago. de 2024, à(s) 06:12, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele=40blacknight.com@dmarc.ietf.org> escreveu:
> 
> Sadly that’s true for a LOT of both ccTLDs and gTLDs … 
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Hosting & Domains
> https://www.blacknight.com
> @mneylon 
> Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal 
> 
>> On 22 Aug 2024, at 10:09, Thomas Corte (TANGO support) <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> wrote:
>> 
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>>> On 22.08.24 08:37, Tobias Sattler wrote:
>>> 
>>> I investigated which ccTLD might run EPP a while ago based on publicly available information.
>>> 
>>> I don’t know if those ccTLDs are following this list, and I cannot guarantee its 100% correctness,
>>> but maybe it helps you.
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IMk5TBzeoJTOwDJfQ-I50Kztwr3bipdjcLKy1etG3cg/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> Given that e.g. .pl and .cz are on this list, it should be pointed out that the list is based on a
>> very lax interpretation of "using EPP". Among other things, these two registries (these are just
>> examples I'm aware of, I'm sure there are other offenders) are using heavily modified versions of
>> the EPP XML schema files, with a custom target namespace, so that's not really EPP at all;
>> registrars thinking they can just use their off-the-shelf EPP client to connect to them are in for a
>> rude awakening.
>> 
>> So "using EPP" here really means something like "XML-based provisioning protocol, roughly resembling
>> EPP".
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> --
>> TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
>> Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
>> Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222
>> Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200
>> D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: Thomas.Corte@knipp.de
>> Germany
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-leave@ietf.org
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-leave@ietf.org