Return-Path: 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 7C2153A09A4 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.com 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 pTFdB8zW3eGB for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-x331.google.com (mail-ot1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) (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 190723A0966 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x331.google.com with SMTP id 60so992755otl.12 for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:06:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=s1Ppx+leX8E14v2RoTFCPnqVqSRR1+Z5csGX8dDTAp0=; b=tbmxCxV6+0a6gnl24KHULoIAg4A6FUtYqjKFf6YEInuwbvc852VpIUGT77nXi/6HgT 2Sd8mUENQMqfWYkRz4FVYt08GWiRfZsnh+4HXTvtJ6zo6wnOk85fqCuKA318xXoKDNZe de2JeIXFCbi3Lk19WFGNLcbxz6GXjeP9/esBOFG7Bd+2viEhMGXq9y+NOtHII5DuorTT KkcUTH9p6OB0xFl5BWQdR3Re2176jSw2fosALn4I4olWd79zE/vlcLqWTxeC3FqfnFE3 yYTq5vTMcjnJME3o0lE5W4nz1E72Xy6HV1gBoiLI89URSkmdGrHKPqoARNJcMJo7aDCU nydg== 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=s1Ppx+leX8E14v2RoTFCPnqVqSRR1+Z5csGX8dDTAp0=; b=DGouqmvWK34nQINFEET7EL8eQOJOuJIdy79KJbiXEqMl8JrMCI6+4LoPlAKLO5ljdq Et4n/y5SOzkx5CYSPtMFuvV8BQowcGWrXqfN/5bNwex+mZSQwdBVpxCHgqH93Mjn+EtP VtMbbA++SMS/E2L1PmFE7wXhlDBnvEEAliwFNHo6HzCh7hwtvKnWRdMTJ8Sq4XY0TE7x l+oiCSNYIqGG4WHe7ZYL5bQjtdc+wcllfE4dOOj7wlvuhdums/qb3l93/DirayFFOCEm YFPhGgaaEZAmVh0EzCMQfcHRB7Xlyy8BaggQtkJF1OdrvLgRue9SoK8yOxFR9axZTi5b WhBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pub3GRslD1/L86COpJ/2QnzZkaYC0WBpDspc6I3IgAkhCO7Luhsj WsEH1SB4d6vZOeWqOEjGYByZtUCuCt+tJ5gafI+Tr+jJq04= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLTGipZAX3JOpIWW+kpnLS9lKMqxPJuKjDOiQes3EUNHfNVTNRkdvl8D1IJyMEF7NEaA9R99amB8A2lohRlehA= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1988:: with SMTP id k8mr2603181otk.4.1586279178354; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE075B24192F8@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> <20200327094413.73386d66@nbbrfq.loc> <0b5331a907a34efbbfe1cc1873404a7d@verisign.com> In-Reply-To: <0b5331a907a34efbbfe1cc1873404a7d@verisign.com> From: Tim Wicinski Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 13:06:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Cc: "ulrich=40wisser.se@dmarc.ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" , "alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at" , "rep.dot.nop@gmail.com" , "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0c53b05a2b666ed" Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 17:06:38 -0000 --000000000000f0c53b05a2b666ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > *From:* regext *On Behalf Of *Ulrich Wisser > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:28 AM > *To:* regext@ietf.org > *Cc:* Alexander Mayrhofer ; Bernhard > Reutner-Fischer ; 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=E2=80=99re doing well, Ulrich! The mechanism described in the = draft > isn=E2=80=99t one that Verisign plans to implement. We do offer a registr= y lock > service, but it doesn=E2=80=99t use EPP to avoid situations in which a co= mpromised > 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 > --000000000000f0c53b05a2b666ed Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A= s an end-user i've always liked the out-of-band registrar-initiated man= agement=C2=A0of the client status.=C2=A0

I can see a registrar offering both in-band and= out-of-band to their clients.=C2=A0

Also, there appear to be some dangling sentences in= section 2.=C2=A0=C2=A0

tim



On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:57 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbe= ck=3D40verisign.com@dmarc.= ietf.org> wrote:

From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Beha= lf Of Ulrich Wisser
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:28 AM
To: regext@ietf= .org
Cc: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>; Bernhard Reutne= r-Fischer <re= p.dot.nop@gmail.com>; Michael.Bauland@knipp.de
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Implementations of draft-wisser-reg= istrylock?

=C2=A0

Hi,

=C2=A0

I have made significant changes to the draft.=

Many thanks to contributions by Michael Bauland and = Bernhard Reutner-Fischer.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

And please give it a review.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

If your registry currently offers or will offer regi= stry lock in the future I would be interested to hear how this draft fits o= r doesn't fit your business model.

=C2=A0

I hope you=E2=80=99re doing well, Ulrich! The mechan= ism described in the draft isn=E2=80=99t one that Verisign plans to impleme= nt. We do offer a registry lock service, but it doesn=E2=80=99t use EPP to = avoid situations in which a compromised registrar/sponsoring client could unlock a domain and make unauthorized changes. We support reg= istrar-initiated management of the client* status values for registrar lock= ing.

=C2=A0

Scott

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--000000000000f0c53b05a2b666ed--