February 2017 - gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

2nd Call for Presentation TechDay Hyderabad ICANN57
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse June 17, 2017

June 17, 2017

Hi, we have still one or two 20 minute spots open, so feel free. greetings, el On 2016-09-01 19:10, Jacques Latour wrote: > Call for Presentations > > TechDay > > at ICANN 57 > > in Hyderabad > > > > The ICANN Tech Working Group is again planning a technical workshop at > the ICANN 57 meeting on 2016-11-05 in Hyderabad, India. > > > > The TechDay Workshop has been a part of ICANN meetings for several > years and has provided a forum for both experienced and new people to > meet, present and discuss technical topics related to registry and DNS > work and security. > > > > For reference, the most recent session was held at the ICANN meeting > in Helsinki, Finland 2016-06-27. > > > > We are specially interested in: > > > > 1. Registration Information Accuracy > > > > We remain interested in presentations relating to registry contact > data cleanup, address validation, malicious registration data > verification, batch and/or real-time validation. > > > > We would like, in particular, to see solutions leveraging Open Source, > Open Data or Open Research in order to make them available to a wider > audience. > > > > 2. IDN > > > > We would like to hear about initiatives with regards to IDN. > > > > 3. In addition, we welcome suggestions for additional topics, such > as; > > > > * Registry services and systems > > * Big Data & associated data analysis > > * IETF DNS protocol updates > > * Registry security > > > > > > If you are interested in participating, please email one or all of > > > > el(a)lisse.NA > ondrej.filip(a)nic.cz > jacques.latour(a)cira.ca > kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org > > > > We hope that you can join us and request that you disseminate this > Request to other lists where it might of of interest. > > > Jacques -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 14

Re: [gtld-tech] ICANN monitoring system API
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight May 13, 2017

May 13, 2017

Speaking of IPs .. Ideally being able to provide blocks, rather than lists of IPs .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Scott Hollenbeck <shollenbeck(a)verisign.com> Date: Friday 17 February 2017 at 13:05 To: "'gustavo.lozano(a)icann.org'" <gustavo.lozano(a)icann.org>, "'gtld-tech(a)icann.org'" <gtld-tech(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] ICANN monitoring system API Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments, Gustavo. It would be helpful to add more introductory text (perhaps in a section titled something like “Operational Assumptions”) to explicitly note several implied functional points. Here are a few that I found: In Section 3, the document says that HTTP Basic authentication is used. Without additional information, that means that credentials are exchanged in plaintext form. Encryption service is hidden in the description of the base URL mentioned in Section 2. I think it would be helpful to note somewhere that TLS protection is required, and that the credentials are protected using TLS. Have you thought about using TLS with mutual authentication of both clients and servers? That would add an extra layer of protection to ensure that only authorized clients have access to TLD-specific data. It would also be helpful to explicitly state that login credentials are provided by ICANN (how are they requested and delivered?), or at least provide a link to some other document that explains the process. It would also be helpful to note that the client must provide (how?) ICANN with a list of IP addresses to be added to a per-TLD white list. Are both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses acceptable? If not, why? Scott From: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:17 AM To: gtld-tech(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gtld-tech] ICANN monitoring system API Hello Colleagues, Specification 10 of the base registry agreement (https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…) describes the Service Level Requirements and emergency thresholds that a Registry Operator has to comply related to the Registry Services. ICANN has been monitoring compliance of new gTLDs following the algorithms defined in this specification. ICANN provides access to Registry Operators to the incident information of its TLDs through an API currently in beta, and we are planning on releasing the production version in the future. The Registry Operators using the beta API had provided valuable feedback, and the specification to be implemented in the production version has been modified accordingly. Attached you will find the latest draft of this specification. I appreciate your feedback no later than February 24, 2017. Regards, Gustavo

9 13

ICANN monitoring system API
by Gustavo Lozano Feb. 17, 2017

Feb. 17, 2017

Hello Colleagues, Specification 10 of the base registry agreement (https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…) describes the Service Level Requirements and emergency thresholds that a Registry Operator has to comply related to the Registry Services. ICANN has been monitoring compliance of new gTLDs following the algorithms defined in this specification. ICANN provides access to Registry Operators to the incident information of its TLDs through an API currently in beta, and we are planning on releasing the production version in the future. The Registry Operators using the beta API had provided valuable feedback, and the specification to be implemented in the production version has been modified accordingly. Attached you will find the latest draft of this specification. I appreciate your feedback no later than February 24, 2017. Regards, Gustavo

2 1

Re: [gtld-tech] Web-based WHOIS, https, redirects
by Francisco Arias Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Hi Alex, I'm not aware of any specific requirements on this regard. As such, both HTTP and HTTPS should be accepted. Regards, -- Francisco On 2/14/17, 2:00 AM, "gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Alexander Mayrhofer" <gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of alexander.mayrhofer(a)nic.at> wrote: Specifically, would ICANN allow a redirect from http: (port 80) to https: (port 443)?

1 0

Web-based WHOIS, https, redirects
by Alexander Mayrhofer Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

All, As we al lknow, ICANN requires " ... and a web-based Directory Service at <whois.nic.TLD> providing free public query-based access... ". However, I'm currently struggling with the question whether there are any more detailed specifications with regards to this? Specifically, would ICANN allow a redirect from http: (port 80) to https: (port 443)? I understand that some of our fellow registry backend operators are doing this, but is there any word regarding this in ICANN documents? I couldn't find any. Can anyone point me into the right direction? Thanks, Alex

2 2