Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

Alexander Mayrhofer | 17 Apr 2012 12:12

ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications was published on April 13th.
Looking through that document, i noticed that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to
transmit trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.

Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a new gTLD, i was wondering whether
there is already work going on regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not
make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their own schema/extension in order to
support those required new data fields (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple
extensions as well..). 

Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of those extensions in an internet draft,
i think it makes sense to bundle forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech contacts to other emerging new gTLD
backend operators, in order to discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP implementation).

Comments are highly appreciated.

thanks

Alex Mayrhofer
Head of R&D  <at>  nic.at

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

headers

Klaus Malorny | 17 Apr 2012 12:46

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

On 17/04/12 12:12, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications was
> published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed that it
> requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit trademark
> claims/registration related data over EPP.
>
>

Hi,

can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed that. 
Thanks in advance.

Klaus
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

headers

Jan Jansen | 17 Apr 2012 15:33

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

Hi,

Alexander is probably referring to
https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home
and more specific to
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-Draft-13apr12.pdf
which contains some hints to extensions on the epp scheme.

Notice that these are all draft documents. The 'claims'/notification
part might be of particular interest too since it involves a lot of
interaction between various parties including registry - registrar and
registrar - registrant exchange of confirmation.

-jan-

> On 17/04/12 12:12, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
>> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications
>> was
>> published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed that
>> it
>> requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit trademark
>> claims/registration related data over EPP.
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed
> that.
> Thanks in advance.

(Continue reading)

headers

Alexander Mayrhofer | 17 Apr 2012 14:25

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

> can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed
> that.
> Thanks in advance.

Sorry, i should have added the link to my initial message. Here you go:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-Draft-13apr12.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1334362955253

cheers,

Alex

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

headers

Linlin Zhou | 23 Apr 2012 08:13

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

In this draft, it emphasizes the IDN readiness. "The Clearinghouse will
accept trademark information in its native form (i.e., using the Unicode
character set); specific variant character mappings must be handled by the
registry." But it leaves to the Registry to handle IDN variants.

When there's a variant domain registration, shall we check all the variant
domains for several times with TMCH if no EPP extension is available?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:26 PM
> To: Klaus Malorny; provreg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
> 
> > can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have
> > missed that.
> > Thanks in advance.
> 
> Sorry, i should have added the link to my initial message. Here you go:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-D
> raft-13apr12.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1334362955253
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________

(Continue reading)

headers

Luis Muñoz | 17 Apr 2012 13:08

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?


Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer <at> nic.at> wrote:
>Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
>those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
>forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
>extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
>contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
>discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
>implementation).

The extensions and the overall process need to be discussed and worked on. It would be interesting to add
test sites to that work. Perhaps that could be shared?

Count me in...

-lem
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

headers

Theo Kramer | 17 Apr 2012 13:25

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?


On 17 Apr 2012, at 1:08 PM, Luis Muñoz wrote:

> 
> 
> Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer <at> nic.at> wrote:
>> Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
>> those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
>> forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
>> extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
>> contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
>> discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
>> implementation).
> 
> The extensions and the overall process need to be discussed and worked on. It would be interesting to add
test sites to that work. Perhaps that could be shared?
> 
> Count me in...
> 

Ditto

--

-- 
Regards
Theo

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

(Continue reading)

headers

Hollenbeck, Scott | 24 Apr 2012 13:45

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:12 AM
> To: provreg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
> 
> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications
> was published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed
> that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit
> trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.
> 
> Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a
> new gTLD, i was wondering whether there is already work going on
> regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not
> make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their
> own schema/extension in order to support those required new data fields
> (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple extensions as
> well..).
> 
> Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
> those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
> forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
> extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
> contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
> discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
> implementation).

Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or extensions for Verisign, but I'm

(Continue reading)

headers

Gregory Berezowsky | 24 Apr 2012 15:42

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck <at> verisign.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer

> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:12 AM
> To: provreg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
>

> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications
> was published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed
> that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit
> trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.
>
> Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a
> new gTLD, i was wondering whether there is already work going on
> regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not
> make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their
> own schema/extension in order to support those required new data fields
> (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple extensions as
> well..).
>
> Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
> those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
> forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
> extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
> contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
> discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
> implementation).

Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or extensions for Verisign, but I'm worried about the timing of the need for these specs and ICANN's launch schedule. Coming to agreement on a standard approach in a short amount of time is going to be a challenge.

I am also interested in participating on standardizing this. At Afilias, we have similar concerns on the timing.

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

headers

Francisco Obispo | 24 Apr 2012 16:10

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:42 AM, Gregory Berezowsky <gberezow <at> afilias.info> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck <at> verisign.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer

> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:12 AM
> To: provreg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
>

> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications
> was published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed
> that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit
> trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.
>
> Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a
> new gTLD, i was wondering whether there is already work going on
> regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not
> make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their
> own schema/extension in order to support those required new data fields
> (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple extensions as
> well..).
>
> Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
> those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
> forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
> extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
> contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
> discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
> implementation).

Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or extensions for Verisign, but I'm worried about the timing of the need for these specs and ICANN's launch schedule. Coming to agreement on a standard approach in a short amount of time is going to be a challenge.

I am also interested in participating on standardizing this. At Afilias, we have similar concerns on the timing.

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

headers

Wil Tan | 24 Apr 2012 16:10

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Gregory Berezowsky <gberezow <at> afilias.info> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck <at> verisign.com> wrote:

Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or extensions for Verisign, but I'm worried about the timing of the need for these specs and ICANN's launch schedule. Coming to agreement on a standard approach in a short amount of time is going to be a challenge.

I am also interested in participating on standardizing this. At Afilias, we have similar concerns on the timing.

Cloud Registry is also willing to contribute towards standardizing this. There is at least a small amount of overlap of requirements between the TMCH flows and the launchphase draft that Gavin and I wrote.

The Launchphase extension has provisions for carrying the "sunrisecode" (called "pvrc" in the draft) but defines an "application" object which we think is a common need during sunrise and other launch phases where multiple requests for a domain name is allowed. In theory we could integrate the claims data / ack bits from the TMC draft into it, but it doesn't seem the most elegant and smells like scope creep. On the other hand, I think registries and registrars would probably want to see a single extension rather than multiple.

The draft expired in the midst of the gTLD application period "extension" but I've made some progress integrating some of James Gould's comments into the draft and we're preparing to work on it further. We're open to collaboration: https://github.com/cloudregistry/EPP-Launch-Phase-Extension-Specification

.wil

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg