IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03

Martin Casanova <martin.casanova@switch.ch> Fri, 30 October 2020 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.casanova@switch.ch>
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 7CAFB3A0E0A for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, 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=switch.ch
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 Sch-G7lj2q9u for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.switch.ch (mx1.switch.ch [84.254.110.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08CBC3A0E08 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at switch.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=switch.ch; s=selector1; t=1604058292; bh=jHSzXKNnwzEnNCuwUVGSDyaCVfpwSaLvHXoptyT3jxw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bwZHUpnxLkRlNLI4Uhq9xdbMDLnwD/77mBILLRqUKZ2Y/Euu8aqy8L4ZzNK8sGvBE K5kjf0/EFAYxUDPsWEGUCBEFdSvYI4oSMEOMk5A3wVeOtMw9S7CspFnLKu/UvPGoGR X0QST4t/2bfS8vuk1Cd9olCSY89cRNpRp3cSsTEqTiTIhh6EzjDaQbas9EPstQqWSU wpU3ioXBsFqAhf46AQDzotPsq+MheNYywVw5gQUGcf3m3JczUTL2QDu2koDw2oKP3J cJ7mKQbKbUc8KvhaJ4Bb1k8+2OM8QfiydZZ9uYkCTcpiKEieOGEYwlB+nd/iJhKvcn 6py0KUM5gie4g==
Authentication-Results: mx1.switch.ch; x-trusted-ip=pass
To: regext@ietf.org
References: <04DF4069-4B02-489C-BB6E-94DEB581F862@elistx.com> <1596663b-1d40-44a7-beb4-dd41172dea91@www.fastmail.com> <75A43B1C-5D7B-4CE6-B126-303B3F34AB35@verisign.com> <84785f0d-cc30-43dd-bf49-894caa1feeb2@www.fastmail.com> <605837F6-B907-457B-B5D0-54D485358AD4@verisign.com> <4b52009c-80b3-4c10-a919-086a732a0c2f@www.fastmail.com> <092857B2-DC47-4D59-AC35-6A1BFB745D8E@verisign.com> <a0926c87-04e2-455d-8cf5-15a0f0c00b15@www.fastmail.com> <2FF281F9-C194-4599-9F2F-2BC9C4073AC4@verisign.com>
From: Martin Casanova <martin.casanova@switch.ch>
Message-ID: <f8db16e7-6872-5614-7b92-dd85da0fe07c@switch.ch>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:44:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2FF281F9-C194-4599-9F2F-2BC9C4073AC4@verisign.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C83C59CDC112E851F7200FFA"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ClientProxiedBy: SWH-S05-EXC3.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.14) To SWH-S04-EXC2.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/XgfesotnKAhE4n4fsv7Qo3yeqSE>
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 11:44:58 -0000

Hello

As an implementer of that draft and having it in productive use with
poll messages for quite a while now
I was able to run some analysis concerning its potential risks to break
clients on a real world example.

We are sending out poll messages including the ChangePoll Element
(rfc-8590) and render the poll message according to
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces if the client did not include the
ChangePoll extension in its login services.

Out of 78 registars 21 were receiving such messages rendered according
to draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
 since they did not include ChangePoll extensions in the login services.
(the others did include ChangePoll)

Out of these 21 registrars in questions we had zero feedback that any
client broke.

To be fair, we also did not get any positive feedback but I can say that
at least from our experience it is
totally save to implement the draft and breaking client where not an
issue at all.

Therefore here my up vote +1.

Thanks

Martin






https://www.nic.ch/export/shared/.content/files/EPP-Manual_en.pdf





On 26.10.20 13:42, Gould, James wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> We'll agree to disagree with the value and risk of draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces, since I can't think of a theoretical or real risk to existing clients with at least two independent implementations.  Your objection can be included in the document shepherd writeup, but as noted before there is no consensus to make a change.      
>

-- 
SWITCH 
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland 
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
martin.casanova@switch.ch, www.switch.ch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email