Re: [weirds] Publishing of draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping

"Gould, James" <> Wed, 27 May 2015 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FB21B2C59 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F9cW73FIvS2z for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 990EC1B2C46 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdq107 with SMTP id q107so482865qgd.1 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=w2YOSc/cEOnuAlhZKaVU9R40Q6TalOwjSYUyLGB+wLs=; b=UV3z/PBO3zbUBSq9ELFuX2RKnT/336Br1Wy0uxzyNAhgirsBOQSXAeKXkxHkyRK8vo je8+DPtPbPCakfRngU7CgFJ6+KuzZ6b2FVs+/8QudUznOxnDLkF4faKSMPqc+mo4Fv62 cr4am3hdTK2CpyFbrVWZ6gznNkfSM7yll6+20SOkWtCFvHF7fKPfQZK+iVrKT5do8uJ5 /bK37Cfqn4vv8ByZV1OGhA2SjT8CuNcsXcn1/JBX3ohpItpbtkFCBykGf2tHifjJSKfH /poF5vf3aw2oOymlxtVuVN1w0LxTq5+WfJ3qxxaftewE4kmfFHrVeYnFxpnZbd8kof9e Pt4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHWnjq9ZttLgzGF6xfR3OJPfKjOGL1rqzhCIwxrbdoIr0NXvN1JFxCniCOATDuhJEA8Y6KJ0m9UPqkirqxPadqPCPTSQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e140mr43675465qhc.26.1432738872769; Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id g4sm3832600qci.4.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (brn1wnexchm01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t4RF1Btj000586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 May 2015 11:01:12 -0400
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:01:11 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Andrew Newton <>
Thread-Topic: [weirds] Publishing of draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping
Thread-Index: AQHQl9WvWGVV//2iAES7gYLwSLJl052Oxv6AgAFoUoA=
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:01:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_BA722A504FF244E68B2B69A0C283187Bverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [weirds] Publishing of draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:01:20 -0000


Thanks for the missed mapping of “linked” to “associated”.  I’ll update the draft accordingly.  I believe that in this case an I-D is needed to help formally define the EPP to RDAP status mapping.  It's not clear from section 10.2 “JSON Values Registry” of RFC 7483 what the process is to register new statuses.  Something similar to section 2.2.3 of RFC 7451 would be helpful, which defines the use of an e-mail to<> for registration.  In either event, I believe an I-D is required in this case.





James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On May 26, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Andrew Newton <<>> wrote:

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Gould, James <<>> wrote:
I did analysis of the EPP statuses with the statuses registered for use in RDAP.  The draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping I-D ( ) identifies the gaps and includes registration entries to fill the gaps to ensure that all of the EPP RFC statuses are supported by RDAP.  Please review and provide any feedback.


There is already a similar value to "linked". It is "associated".

And I think it is great that you have written up an I-D on this, but getting values into the registry simply requires providing the information you have in Section 3.1 to the IANA, who will have the Expert Reviewers* verify you have met the criteria. In other words, publication of an RFC is not necessary.

*I don't know who they are. I don't even know if the IESG ever assigned any.