IETF Logo Mail Archive

[regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09)

"Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us> Fri, 22 November 2024 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 78438C15198F for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:14:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hxr-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 my0cTm1pEcvF for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6BFEC14F5F6 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539d9fffea1so2534324e87.2 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:14:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hxr-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1732302850; x=1732907650; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=fS+D1637je/4m0d5UM8Xgp7gb3uZs9+QNZNmoQ9WyLw=; b=QxUWXiOsYzbFvXghHMjF9F0c0h+8icrekfXf/kAbmHHK0JbsoyhV2jA5LVlf8vDvPM 2YffY8PY1RgNjFeO00ONf3l1e4mYI4OP3/TLq0nYrX+lLS25cyVMa96rxgvkzs1FCaw/ sTb+Xf//tJVhF2n2085rntOA6rhtQI6pXhzmWDJ0+ybEtxgbvlGDehYBP6ZB7x/5llCu CkWqcKA4We3n0A41bBQkMxofv14CjG/+ysPMsY09eeir95NaQTqbALn6qHtgPW0QYKXf Dp17WP6hEbK+x1hbCSSKrHs8B5ScWoJzIcn4qJYCS1syWPGeg8WfGgyrHBcKBDA16/oF d72g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1732302850; x=1732907650; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fS+D1637je/4m0d5UM8Xgp7gb3uZs9+QNZNmoQ9WyLw=; b=o1JRzk2N1scixrZv6tXp+4cvLDEq4MY9zJ//sCFUXhTBiHHpJ9zQOOw1XEsuK/dXKM 4ywYxUjFvUKKFYIJtD+M83koAqEfypQVy815C6PJJYjTzUMIli4BdfcWnJigQNdMCPb5 2TaVIzeeHntLwfIiwSZgs5283RCd1DtuE3DNM7E9wY4FAnL5cPwYFjk4Y0PlJxQy/f21 wsTPGphLZwfl3ejE1Mxy008UQiIM1k8WKZKvZw/AW1CEKudF/CR1WpkQqNHbtOzLx2Oa fhXDIJBn50ZnsXw48DU6UrfhQ/BqcWFkUs8F+T2GxhnWpNA+BDJu/vMijp7q+7FpBC06 kKOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw83kaUQgsniMS4NoeOonRNyfi/ZbErdfgTyCmd78d/cTJaEifI sg2shMWpIMWBiindNlZJvMRMWEmV/LTiL5BYrkP/N/pfpA4HmupYv4FEBgdH4P7BxI9ZocAkj2J uwJIXf5eLNbeGy9JxfMBbaJJRL9mQHWakmWMFryjso0qmXs48
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct0n6A+igWHuDdvn7A8l+X8bj9dQEy/PznSTeTPuzX14tns3SupZc/l+CFsDSP lVm1/1l6Na+ij6lFtTo53c5lG2b8d
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH1e7kfREg2gNWPvTDHWDG0BuOezYj2KI8o5iXD/mVWv+zpvg0zgs4+dJd+boixHdxKyrTJp8NzvS3iHIfW6XE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:4017:b0:53d:dabd:c06b with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53ddabdc0a3mr864443e87.49.1732302849824; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:14:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <73182D47-F3BB-4765-8795-180BAEE4A73D@elistx.com> <dba8d9ed-6e14-4e87-93c4-f5c614c346e4@denic.de> <10EF311E-6DEE-4400-AF22-A65EFBF54875@elistx.com> <CAAQiQRcqKy1h7-Udwd+KpaHTHMiNnZQciLyODxAT9nY7MPpJMQ@mail.gmail.com> <6937738e254b4edb8b75a756c44bb20d@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <6937738e254b4edb8b75a756c44bb20d@verisign.com>
From: "Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 14:13:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRdX56hAwiT3unVY3=TGGYB+_i03DLgeqKWms9VrNCgK7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 4BRNPNT4XM73VH7E2CXR2P5AQNNQIRW5
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4BRNPNT4XM73VH7E2CXR2P5AQNNQIRW5
X-MailFrom: andy@hxr.us
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
CC: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09)
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/TvDCS_fYIDo15gcBUoLjvEmdTjY>
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>

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:25 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
<shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. Section 2 discusses the migration to a newer version of the extension with a
> > SHOULD but the text does not describe the migration process nor references
> > one. Either the SHOULD should be lowercased, the migration process should
> > be specified, or the migration process should be referenced.
>
> [SAH] Thanks for the feedback, Andy. There's another option: remove this section entirely. My preference would be to either lowercase the SHOULD or to remove the section. Do you prefer one of those over the other?

IMHO, leaving the section in the draft will attract unwanted attention. :)

>
> > 2. The last paragraph of the security section does not specify the "who" in the
> > warning. Is this for registrars, registries, end users?
>
> [SAH] Are you referring to the "either address may be forwarded to the other" text? If so, it applies to all of those involved parties equally. I can make that clear by saying "all users of these addresses should be aware". Does that work?
>

It is better, but I don't have a "gooder" suggestion. That said, how
is this a security consideration? It is a usability issue, but what is
the security threat?

-andy

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status