Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

headers Gould, James | 10 Aug 2012 16:23

_______________________________________________
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

Hi Trung,

On 15/08/2012 21:10, Tran, Trung wrote:
> Thanks James, Wil, and Gavin for putting the draft together.  I’m still
> reviewing the document, however I have a concern with the list of
> statuses (Section 2.3).  While having a defined list makes it easier for
> different parties to understand what each status means, it could be too
> restrictive.  It’s conceivable to have statuses around the auction
> process for validated applications.  So should extension to status be
> allowed?

If we make the status element arbitrary, then each server will have its
own set of codes that each client will have to learn via some out of
band channel such as documentation or a support ticket, and will have to
develop business logic for handling them. By keeping this element an
enumeration we're making it much easier for clients to support this
extension.

If there are other status codes that would be useful, let's try to
generate an exhaustive list before we throw the baby out with the bath
water and make the status code an arbitrary text element.

G.

--

-- 
Gavin Brown
Chief Technology Officer
CentralNic Ltd
Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
https://www.centralnic.com/

CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company
number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

On 10/08/12 16:23, Gould, James wrote:
> I've been working with Wil Tan and Gavin Brown on updating the Launch Phase EPP
> Extension Mapping to support the two models (ICANN and ARI/Neustar) along with
> the models that were previously defined in the Launch Phase EPP Extension
> Version 01.  You can find the draft at the URL
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-02.txt.  This is a straw man
> draft to kick off the discussions as the tmch-tech list works out the model.
>   I've already posted a message on the tmch-tech list to start the discussions
> there.
>
> --
>
>

Hi James,

as I just commented on the eppsig draft: Unfortunately, I hadn't time yet to 
dive into the whole clearing house stuff, so my question could be naïve. Can you 
please elaborate about the need to support digital signatures in your extension, 
esp. how the lack of signatures would be a vector for misuse. And who is 
actually in possession of the private key and signs that part?

Regards,

Klaus

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

Klaus,

The use of digital signatures and PKI is included in the ARI / Neustar Model for the Trademark Clearinghouse
(TMCH) and discussed at the summit this week in Brussels.  The TMCH would be the holder of the private key and
the registries, or anyone that needs to validate the signature, would have the corresponding public key. 
Using PKI, the trademark holder / registrant would go to the TMCH to get a signed claim to use with one or more
sunrise applications.  The TMCH, who has already validated the trademark information, would provide the
information along with a digital signature around it to the trademark holder / registrant.  The trademark
holder / registrant would give the signed claim to a registrar as part of a sunrise application.  The
registrar would pass the signed claim in the launch phase extension of the domain create to the registry. 
The registry can validate the signed claim using the public key of the TMCH and trust the information
covered by the TMCH digital signature.  With this model, there is no direct dependency from the registries
to the TMCH to validate the information, there is no need to replicate trademark information from the TMCH
to the registries, and the trademark holder / registrant can securely pass the relavent trademark
information to the registries in their sunrise applications. 

Please let me know if you have any additional feedback or questions in your review of the Launch Phase EPP
Extension draft.

Thanks,

Jim  

________________________________________
From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] on behalf of Klaus Malorny [Klaus.Malorny <at> knipp.de]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:50 AM
To: provreg <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted

On 10/08/12 16:23, Gould, James wrote:
> I've been working with Wil Tan and Gavin Brown on updating the Launch Phase EPP
> Extension Mapping to support the two models (ICANN and ARI/Neustar) along with
> the models that were previously defined in the Launch Phase EPP Extension
> Version 01.  You can find the draft at the URL
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-02.txt.  This is a straw man
> draft to kick off the discussions as the tmch-tech list works out the model.
>   I've already posted a message on the tmch-tech list to start the discussions
> there.
>
> --
>
>

Hi James,

as I just commented on the eppsig draft: Unfortunately, I hadn't time yet to
dive into the whole clearing house stuff, so my question could be naïve. Can you
please elaborate about the need to support digital signatures in your extension,
esp. how the lack of signatures would be a vector for misuse. And who is
actually in possession of the private key and signs that part?

Regards,

Klaus

_______________________________________________
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

Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted

Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted

Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted

Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted

Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted