Re: [regext] Security Lock anyone? (Was: Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items)

[Erwin Lansing <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

At .dk we also offer a form form of registry lock, called VID, which I’d like to redesign at some point.  Having a standardised, or at least similar “enough” product offering across different registries and TLDs would make it much more attractive for registrants.  Even though I won’t be in Prague, I’m certainly interested in following any standardisation effort.

Best,
Erwin



> On 25 Feb 2019, at 17.11, Marc Groeneweg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> At SIDN (for .nl) we have our own form of registry lock called .nl control (https://www.sidn.nl/en/nl-control?language_id=2). Perhaps this can be used as input for a joined effort in increasing security around registry/registrar operations.
> 
> Regards,
> Marc Groeneweg
> 
> On 25/02/2019, 14:57, "regext on behalf of Gavin Brown" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>    If a BoF happens in Prague I will certainly attend.
> 
>    On 25/02/2019 07:26, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
>> Antoin, all,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> for now this is more a question / request to the group, rather than a
>> specific agenda slot request – but:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In the light of the recent attacks on registration interfaces, do we
>> want to take a fresh look at standardization of “Registry Lock” /
>> “Security Lock”. There’s some previous work on this topic (see
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wallstrom-epp-registrant-problem-statement-00).
>> As Patrick pointed out, there’s also some IPR considerations in this
>> area (See his blog post at
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150603_registry_lock_or_epp_with_two_factor_authentication/).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I constantly hear from registrars that “Security Lock” (our product
>> name) would be much more attractive if there wasn’t a myriad of
>> different processes at each registry – so my take is that there’s room
>> for standardization (which probably goes beyond the pure EPP extension).
>> I’m also hearing some fellow ccTLD colleages are interesting in a
>> common “profile”.
>> 
>> Would regext be the right spot for such a discussion? If yes, would it
>> be interesting to hold a 20 minutes slot in Prague? Or even a Bar-BoF
>> before we “report back” to the working group?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *Von:*regext <[e-mail]> *Im Auftrag von *Antoin Verschuren
>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 24. Februar 2019 14:43
>> *An:* Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
>> *Betreff:* [regext] Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Please find the preliminary agenda for Prague attached.
>> I hope I captured everyone that has requested time to speak. If not, let
>> the chairs know.
>> We still have a little bit of time left on the agenda, so if you have
>> urgent agenda items, let us know as well.
>> If you are on the agenda, start preparing ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards, Jim and Antoin
>> 
>> - --
>> Antoin Verschuren
>> 
>> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
>> M: [phone]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>> 
> 
>    --
>    Gavin Brown
>    Chief Technology Officer
>    CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
>    Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
>    for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
>    https://www.centralnic.com/
>    +44.7548243029
> 
>    CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
>    company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
>    EC2R 6AR.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext