May 2015 - gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

Publishing of the Change Poll EPP Extension IETF Draft
by Gould, James July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

The first draft of the Change Poll EPP Extension ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-change-poll-00 ) has been submitted to the IETF. I co-authored this draft with Trung Tran from Neustar to provide a mechanism within EPP to notify clients of any server-side change, including but not limited to regular batch processes, customer support actions, Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) or Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) actions, court directed actions, and bulk updates based on customer requests. Since the client is not directly involved or knowledgable of these operations, the extension is used along with an EPP object mapping to provide the resulting state of the post-operation object, and optionally a pre-operation object, with the operation meta-data of what, when, who, and why. We would like this draft to be included in a re-charting of the EPPEXT Working Group. Please review the draft and provide any feedback. Thanks, — JG [cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgould(a)Verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 2

Re: [gtld-tech] [eppext] [provreg] Publishing of the Change Poll EPP Extension IETF Draft
by Rubens Kuhl May 31, 2015

May 31, 2015

James et al, Has the use case of DNS publishing been considered for the changepoll extension ? Some registries defer publication of a domain to the registry zone until DNS servers respond correctly (authoritative, DNSKEY matches DS etc.), and a poll message could signal that to the sponsoring client. I couldn't find an appropriate operation in changepoll-02... what are your and the group's thoughts on this ? Rubens > Em 30/01/2015, à(s) 11:53:000, Gould, James <JGould(a)verisign.com> escreveu: > > Ulrich, > > Thank you for the review of the draft. My feedback is embedded below. > > I received private feedback to add an optional caseId element to help capture the UDRP, URS, or other case identifier for the change. The optional caseId element was added with an enumerated “type” attribute, with the enumerated values of “udrp”, “urs”, and “custom”, and with an optional “name” attribute for the “custom” type. Are there any additional case types that should be included in the enumerated list? You can see the latest updates of the draft using the GitHub project https://github.com/james-f-gould/EPP-Change-Poll.git <https://github.com/james-f-gould/EPP-Change-Poll.git>. > > — > > JG > > > <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png> > > James Gould > Distinguished Engineer > jgould(a)Verisign.com <x-msg://23/jgould@Verisign.com> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Ulrich Wisser <ulrich(a)wisser.se <mailto:ulrich@wisser.se>> wrote: > >> Hi James and Trung! >> >> You two did a nice job on the extension. >> >> I would prefer the transform command instead of the info response. That would eliminate the need for before/after indicator. > > You mean you want to see the full input transform command in the poll message? Most of the server-side operations don’t go through EPP, so it would be a challenge to attempt to present the input prior to executing the operation using an EPP transform command. Another issue with using a transform command is representing the server-side logic that is not reflected in the input parameters like the setting of the expiration date. The client can see the end result of the operation without having to replicate the transform operation logic, along with the meta-data about the operation using the info response. > > One question for the list is the value in making the before image of the object available? The after image is required, but the thought is that the before image may be desired. > >> >> I have some problems with the operators >> >> - Why is autoRenew a special operation instead of operation renew with op="auto”? > > I agree that both are associated with renewing the domain; although I view them as separate first class operations with different characteristics (What drives the operation, how does the operation function, and what is the applicable grace period for the operation). > > >> - What is the difference between delete and delete op="purge”? > > Good question. Purge is associated with physically removing the object from the database where the delete could start an RGP lifecycle flow. An immediate delete (e.g. delete within the add grace period) is reflected by a “delete” with the op=“purge”; otherwise it would be just “delete”. > >> - Why autoPurge / autoDelete? > > Another good question. What if for some registries the domain is deleted instead of auto renewed at expiry? That would match the use of the “autoDelete” operation. Now, the “autoDelete” could include the purging of the object which would be reflected by setting op=“purge”. The autoPurge operation is the server batch that physically purges the object (domain) at the end of the pendingDelete period. In this case the domain has been deleted, put through the RGP lifecycle flow, and is being purged from the database. We wanted to handle both types of registries (auto renew and auto delete) as well as be able to identify the event when the object is purged from the database. I hope this makes sense. > >> >> Kind regards from Stockholm >> >> Ulrich >> >> >> >> 2015-01-20 14:49 GMT+01:00 Gould, James <JGould(a)verisign.com <mailto:JGould@verisign.com>>: >> The first draft of the Change Poll EPP Extension ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-change-poll-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-change-poll-00> ) has been submitted to the IETF. I co-authored this draft with Trung Tran from Neustar to provide a mechanism within EPP to notify clients of any server-side change, including but not limited to regular batch processes, customer support actions, Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) or Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) actions, court directed actions, and bulk updates based on customer requests. Since the client is not directly involved or knowledgable of these operations, the extension is used along with an EPP object mapping to provide the resulting state of the post-operation object, and optionally a pre-operation object, with the operation meta-data of what, when, who, and why. We would like this draft to be included in a re-charting of the EPPEXT Working Group. >> >> Please review the draft and provide any feedback. >> >> Thanks, >> >> — >> >> JG >> >> >> <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png> >> >> James Gould >> Distinguished Engineer >> jgould(a)Verisign.com <http://jgould@verisign.com/> >> >> 703-948-3271 <tel:703-948-3271> >> 12061 Bluemont Way >> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/> >> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> provreg mailing list >> provreg(a)ietf.org <mailto:provreg@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EppExt mailing list >> EppExt(a)ietf.org <mailto:EppExt@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext > > _______________________________________________ > EppExt mailing list > EppExt(a)ietf.org <mailto:EppExt@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>

3 4

PGP Signing Party at Tech Day Buenos Aires
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse May 24, 2015

May 24, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, we would like to do a PGP Key Signing Party as part of Tech Day in Buenos Aires. A short introduction is on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party We have created a keyring on the website created to assist with such events http://biglumber.com/x/web?keyring=2592 If you wish to have your key signed, you you must paste an ASCII-armored file containing the key(s) you wish to add to the keyring into the provided text area. In my case I first looked at what keys I actually have: gpg --list-keys el(a)lisse.NA which showed: pub 1024R/A6490CB9 1995-09-07 [revoked: 2015-02-13] [...] pub 4096R/79453FAB 2015-02-08 uid Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> uid Dr Eberhard W Lisse <doc(a)lisse.na> uid [jpeg image of size 14847] [...] and then used gpg --export -a 79453FAB to generate the ASCII-armored file (of the non-revoked key) which is now visible on the site, and which is used to sign this email. greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVWI7ApcFHaN5RT+rAQKKzw//dZOVyxvXNBw/44yFja3dNKekx7UsDMz/ /0bOALGmzCML6/AVJNmUsCBKU3xC2j+rRWtvwYIvo5XwFpxvyCVxAn7tKBSQTxrC AojTqoY59D3m5e1MrN6MrpOKSKg5rBVgIeM/+sS+8Sp+RVzHE9NZ6HQfQXjB1/D8 Bqn+yws1YRoM6Q2YrIuTm9TrkjqqydPuVH6ypPlQkjrL1PaD7SWxQN+DxbvrGKFc lwFguOqYTNMziJYxQDlvV1tXzC3EZ0ZVQ2zrlRSc7UtWk+f+ILu4yYJi3Dpad8+X io2MLG2Q5euLgQV2iaIwgbnqAbdFnxmV6RtdOrOePRMP8aNfwSqhsGouxpAgUCxj oe8AA1ynCKydbeAQoJ6ZGV4IkASQ0WNNda7DaQy1V4TmZDqjHeVsJqvsuz+3+hGq lqkevI2Be+8axsjvpZEb3ibhYuvaQuLIOpI6odTODc0M/8QpjPjlJKQkhiSO/ahn fv3UwhWwklpGPdvlD91XehBhL8I2SwtM0WmRpIdHGlHqTJKPd28wdxXZFyTisrri bqDaBr1iU4smXog9ck3QCUfA14oYOJZHBTWd/zeZCS7UdXw/1FjZBPjx4Ga72gp9 bVc857mhmQVTMNgxfRPSpkMPxlqZagfVgvBHvvNeF0QhjUiSnu/nmqdjErgBhjcv HyUCo8HlvOM= =tOqu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

TMDB down?
by Alexander Mayrhofer May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Hi, we're currently experiencing errors when fetching files from the TMCH. Additionally, our registrars are reporting issues with fetching Claims information. Have i missed a maintenance announcement, or is this an unplanned outage? When we're trying to fetch the DNL from https://ry.marksdb.org/dnl/dnl-latest.csv , we do get a HTTP 200 OK response, but the file we receive contains: <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <title>TMDB - Trademark-Database</title> </head> <body> <h1>This service of the Trademark Clearinghouse Database (TMDB) web client is currently not available.</h1> Please try again later. Our apologies for the inconvenience. </body> </html> Same for the SMD revocation list. Since we do not have a production registrar TMCH account, i cannot verify the issue for the claims interface. Are other registries experiencing similar issues? Has anybody received any notification from either ICANN or the TMCH? Thanks, Alex Mayrhofer TLDBOX

3 3