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

Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at> Mon, 25 February 2019 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
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 E5C99130E5B for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:26:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 brB0SIQQcy8q for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at [83.136.33.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81F2D130E0A for <regext@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([10.17.175.6]) by mail.sbg.nic.at with XWall v3.53 ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:26:15 +0100
Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:26:07 +0100
From: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
To: Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>, Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [regext] Security Lock anyone? (Was: Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items)
Thread-Index: AdTM217VKOovYDXpRTyT+c+9wEU8PQ==
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:26:07 +0000
Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE0759FBF8765@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.10.0.110]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE0759FBF8765NICSEXCH2sbgnic_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-XWALL-BCKS: auto
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/qqko_aYs0VpGvodWzyToaNqQrl8>
Subject: [regext] Security Lock anyone? (Was: Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items)
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:26:25 -0000

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 <regext-bounces@ietf.org>; Im Auftrag von Antoin Verschuren
Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Februar 2019 14:43
An: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>;
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: +31 6 37682392





_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext