- gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

Re: [gtld-tech] [eppext] RDAP server of the registry
by Hollenbeck, Scott Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Aaron [mailto:greg@illumintel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:27 AM > To: 'Gustavo Lozano'; 'Patrik Wallström'; Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: gtld-tech(a)icann.org; eppext(a)ietf.org > Subject: RE: [gtld-tech] [eppext] RDAP server of the registry > > Gustavo correctly notes some important things --ICANN has contractual > requirements that tell registries and registrars what data they MUST > deliver > (currently via the WHOIS protocol), and ICANN is now working on how > that > data should be delivered via RDAP. Whatever document is created is > going > to be binding on registries and registrars. As per the 2013 RAA, once > RDAP > spec is mature "ICANN reserves the right to specify alternative formats > and > protocols, and upon such specification, the Registrar will implement > such > alternative specification as soon as reasonably practicable." The new > gTLD > registry agreements contain similar. > > RDAP's supposedly been designed to deliver what ICANN might require of > its > registrars and registries. If so, we are embarking on an exercise in > implementation in the gTLD world, with ICANN as the policy authority. > BCPs > for ccTLDs etc. might be nice, but seem like a distraction from the > immediate task at hand. Thinking about the best way to implement RDAP is no distraction. It will help reduce implementation costs *and* ensure that we deliver the best technical solutions in the long run. Remember, the agreements you mentioned above were written before the RDAP specifications were completed. There are features in RDAP that aren't mentioned in the agreements or the proposed profile. There are ongoing policy efforts in ICANN that *will* have an impact on RDAP implementers. I'm suggesting that we need to take a big picture approach before we're told to implement current WHOIS operational requirements with RDAP as a transport. That just makes RDAP part of the ongoing problems. Here's one example: data privacy. WHOIS can't do it, but RDAP can, and it's not part of the profile. Shouldn't it be part of the discussion? Why shouldn't we think about it before we perpetuate a WHOIS issue that becomes an RDAP issue? > The implementation requirements should certainly be well-thought-out, > should > receive input (and hopefully collegial buy-in) from the parties who > will > have to make it work, and should be clearly documented. As Gustavo > says, > ICANN has process to deliver that. Requiring "community consensus" > about > the contents, as Scott suggested, is a different and higher standard > from > what has been agreed to in the ICANN contracts. I'm not a lawyer, so contracts aren't my area of expertise. I do, however, know something about software engineering and the costs associated with software development. Knowing that the new gTLD RA says this: "Registry Operator shall implement a new standard supporting access to domain name registration data ... if ... its implementation is commercially reasonable in the context of the overall operation of the registry." How does one determine that which is "commercially reasonable"? We know that there are policy development efforts happening in parallel that will produce additional implementation requirements. Requirements that conflict with the profile (changes in data privacy requirements, for example) will increase implementation costs, and "commercially reasonable" becomes a point of contention. The process I've described should help mitigate that risk. It's not a higher standard, it's a method that can be used to help confirm that the "commercially reasonable" requirement has been met. Scott

2 1

RDAP server of the registry
by Gustavo Lozano Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Hello, The first version of the ICANN gTLD profile was published days ago, (see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2015-September/000507.html) this document describes basic parameters and objects to be implemented by ICANN-contracted parties. The gTLD Whois output contains a field with the Whois server of the Registrar. In the case of thin registries, this allows the end user to get the registration data from the registrar, and in the case of thick registries, this allows the end user to query for extra Whois fields (e.g. registrar expiration date). The gTLD profile support the same functionality with the following mechanism: The RDAP domain lookup response MUST contain a links object as defined in RFC7483 section 4.2. The links object MUST contain the elements rel:related and href pointing to the Registrar's RDAP URL for the queried domain object. Questions for this group: * What do you think about this proposal? If you have different ideas on how to provide this functionality, please share it with the group. * What is your opinion about documenting this mechanism in an I-D? Regards, Gustavo Lozano ICANN

7 14

FW: New Version Notification for draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-events-00.txt
by Gustavo Lozano Oct. 4, 2015

Oct. 4, 2015

Hello, [Apologies if you received this email multiple times] I published draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-events-00.txt (see http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-events-00.tx t) that tries to solve open issues 2 and 5 identified in the gTLD RDAP profile (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2015-September/000507.html) The gTLD RDAP profile describes which features, basic parameters and objects will need to be implemented by ICANN-contracted parties in order to support analogous functionality to gTLD Whois service. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Gustavo Lozano ICANN On 10/4/15, 11:20, "internet-drafts(a)ietf.org" <internet-drafts(a)ietf.org> wrote: > >A new version of I-D, >draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-events-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Gustavo Lozano and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-events >Revision: 00 >Title: Additional RDAP events to support the gTLD Whois output >Document date: 2015-10-04 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 4 >URL: >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-addition >al-events-00.txt >Status: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-e >vents/ >Htmlized: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-rdap-gtld-whois-additional-events >-00 > > >Abstract: > This document adds two event action types to the IANA RDAP JSON > Values registry, defined in [RFC7483], which are required to map two > fields from the gTLD Whois output into the RDAP response. > > > > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat >

1 0

Definition of "% of DNS Service Availability" used in Registrant Survey
by Chris Baker Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Hello, I was reading the recent ICANN Releases Phase One Registrant Survey on the Domain Name Landscape and saw mention in the metrics section a "% of DNS Service Availability." I was wondering if there was a definition for this measurement available? Possibly some details about how data is collected where it is collected from? ... etc Please let me know if you have any questions, Thank you for your time, CBaker Reference: "% of DNS Service Availability ( Present SLA is 100% )" Category - Trust in http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/iag-metrics-final-recs-26sep14-en.…

2 1

About repository identifier
by liangchenguang＠zdns.cn Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

Dear Sir or Madam, I had to write e-mail to iana,but did not receive a reply.You acknowledge that i send to her acceptance? Mail content: We want to apply for the repository identifier below , among which "zdns" is for registrar and the other 22 IDs are all TLDs. Please check whether they are correct or not. Change Controller ID: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu bagua wangzhi wangzhan zhongxin yule wangdian sb zhaopin woaini shishang canting cishan sc xinwen jituan Change Controller Name: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu bagua wangzhi wangzhan zhongxin yule wangdian sb zhaopin woaini shishang canting cishan sc xinwen jituan Change Controller Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Reference/Contact ID:fengshuo Reference/Contact Name:fengshuo Reference/Contact Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Thank you. 梁晨光产品经理互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心有限公司座机：010-58813244 手机：13811479777 邮件：liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn 网址：www.zdns.cn 地址：北京市海淀区中关村南4街4号中国科学院软件园1号楼邮编：100190

1 0

About repository identifier
by liangchenguang＠zdns.cn Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear Sir or Madam, We want to apply for the repository identifier below , among which "zdns" is for registrar and the other 22 IDs are all TLDs. Please check whether they are correct or not. Change Controller ID: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu bagua wangzhi wangzhan zhongxin yule wangdian sb zhaopin woaini shishang canting cishan sc xinwen jituan Change Controller Name: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu bagua wangzhi wangzhan zhongxin yule wangdian sb zhaopin woaini shishang canting cishan sc xinwen jituan Change Controller Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Reference/Contact ID:fengshuo Reference/Contact Name:fengshuo Reference/Contact Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Thank you. 梁晨光产品经理互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心有限公司座机：010-58813244 手机：13811479777 邮件：liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn 网址：www.zdns.cn 地址：北京市海淀区中关村南4街4号中国科学院软件园1号楼邮编：100190

1 0

Fw: Re: About repository identifier
by liangchenguang＠zdns.cn Sept. 7, 2015

Sept. 7, 2015

FYI. 梁晨光产品经理互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心有限公司座机：010-58813244 手机：13811479777 邮件：liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn 网址：www.zdns.cn 地址：北京市海淀区中关村南4街4号中国科学院软件园1号楼邮编：100190 From: liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn Date: 2015-09-07 17:00 To: Kuhl CC: 高雷; gtld-tech; os_zhangjun Subject: Re: Re: [gtld-tech] About repository identifier Dear Sir or Madam, Sorry, the information in the last email is wrong, this is the update information. Change Controller ID: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu bagua wangzhi wangzhan zhongxin yule wangdian sb zhaopin woaini shishang canting cishan sc xinwen jituan Change Controller Name: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu bagua wangzhi wangzhan zhongxin yule wangdian sb zhaopin woaini shishang canting cishan sc xinwen jituan Change Controller Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Reference/Contact ID:fengshuo Reference/Contact Name:fengshuo Reference/Contact Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Thank you. 梁晨光产品经理互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心有限公司座机：010-58813244 手机：13811479777 邮件：liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn 网址：www.zdns.cn 地址：北京市海淀区中关村南4街4号中国科学院软件园1号楼邮编：100190 From: liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn Date: 2015-09-07 16:28 To: Kuhl CC: 高雷; gtld-tech; os_zhangjun Subject: Re: Re: [gtld-tech] About repository identifier Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your response. We want to apply for the repository identifier below , among which "zdns" is for registrar and the other 22 IDs are all TLDs. Please check whether they are correct or not. Change Controller ID: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu &#x7f51 &#x5740 &#x7f51 &#x7ad9 &#x7f51 &#x5e97 &#x516b &#x5366 &#x4e2d &#x4fe1 &#x5a31 &#x4e50 &#x5546 &#x6807 &#x62db &#x8058 &#x6211 &#x7231 &#x4f60 &#x65f6 &#x5c1a &#x9910 &#x5385 &#x6148 &#x5584 &#x5546 &#x57ce &#x65b0 &#x95fb &#x96c6 &#x56e2 Change Controller Name: zdns wang top show citic shop ren sohu &#x7f51 &#x5740 &#x7f51 &#x7ad9 &#x7f51 &#x5e97 &#x516b &#x5366 &#x4e2d &#x4fe1 &#x5a31 &#x4e50 &#x5546 &#x6807 &#x62db &#x8058 &#x6211 &#x7231 &#x4f60 &#x65f6 &#x5c1a &#x9910 &#x5385 &#x6148 &#x5584 &#x5546 &#x57ce &#x65b0 &#x95fb &#x96c6 &#x56e2 Change Controller Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Reference/Contact ID:fengshuo Reference/Contact Name:fengshuo Reference/Contact Email:fengshuo@zdns.cn Thank you. 梁晨光产品经理互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心有限公司座机：010-58813244 手机：13811479777 邮件：liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn 网址：www.zdns.cn 地址：北京市海淀区中关村南4街4号中国科学院软件园1号楼邮编：100190 From: Rubens Kuhl Date: 2015-09-07 11:33 To: liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn CC: gtld-tech; 高雷 Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] About repository identifier On Sep 6, 2015, at 10:12 PM, liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn wrote: Dear Sir or Madam, A shall be part of the ROID and the identifier shall be registered by IANA. What dose the Controller Email and Reference/Contact Email mean? Change Controller Email and Reference/Contact Email Is the information below right?we want to ues "zdns" as our repository identifier for all our tlds. Although it's not what ICANN prefers, I don't see many options for IDN TLDs... they would prefer the TLD itself due to the possibility a business transaction or a back-end change. Also, RFCs are not totally clear where RoIDs must be unique between domains and contacts, but just in case you could use ZDNHDL and ZDNSDOM, ZDNSHDL and ZDNS etc. Change Controller ID: #x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073 Change Controlled ID doesn't need to be expressed in this notation, although it could be ZDNS Change Controller Name:#x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073 Same as above. Reference/Contact ID:#x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073 This could a person's name represented like Liang_Chen_Guang or a role name Back_End_Registry_Admin Reference/Contact Name:#x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073 This could Liang Chen Guang, Back End Registry Admin Do we need to provide other information to prove our identity? There is no such thing. Obama could use ZDNS as RoID unique suffix if he registers first... Argentinians might not like the AusRegistry registered AR, but sounds like a good suffix since AusRegistry contains more than 8 letters. Some registries clearly went for random IDs (Q9JYB4C, for instance). Rubens

1 0

About repository identifier
by liangchenguang＠zdns.cn Sept. 7, 2015

Sept. 7, 2015

Dear Sir or Madam, A shall be part of the ROID and the identifier shall be registered by IANA. What dose the Controller Email and Reference/Contact Email mean? Change Controller Email and Reference/Contact Email Is the information below right?we want to ues "zdns" as our repository identifier for all our tlds.Change Controller ID: #x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073Change Controller Name:#x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073Reference/Contact ID:#x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073 Reference/Contact Name:#x007A #x0064 #x006E #x0073 Do we need to provide other information to prove our identity? 梁晨光产品经理互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心有限公司座机：010-58813244 手机：13811479777 邮件：liangchenguang(a)zdns.cn 网址：www.zdns.cn 地址：北京市海淀区中关村南4街4号中国科学院软件园1号楼邮编：100190

3 4

URS and replay attacks
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

@ll, I'm wondering what we have, if any, in resources to prevent URS replay attacks. The threat scenario we've made include access to the "Sent Items" folder of an URS Provider, without access to PGP information. With such access, domains that already received URS-Lock and URS-Suspend commands might be subject to lock or suspension again, even if there is not, at that time, an URS procedure ongoing. That could even happen with a new registrant of that domain. I couldn't find anything in the requirements or URS Provider RFIs that would generate information capable of mitigating this threat... am I missing something ? Rubens

2 2

Verification of the ROID in PDT and upcoming Advisory
by Francisco Arias Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

Dear Colleagues, As a follow up to the draft updated PDT specifications (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-22jul1 5-en) and the gTLD Registries Operational Workshop held in Buenos Aires, I would like to let you know that ICANN is planning to release a verification of the ROID format as part of Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT). The ROID check would be done as part of both the EPP and Whois tests cases. The verification would check two things: 1) that the ROID is properly formatted as described in RFC 5730, per Specification 6 of the registry agreement; and 2) that the repository identifier used is already registered with IANA (https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-repository-ids/epp-repository-ids.xht ml). This update will be implemented at the same time as the updates regarding the RDDS (Whois) Advisory. We will implement warnings (no failures) in case of deviations starting on 2 November 2015, and strict enforcement will start on 31 January 2016. Finally, ICANN is planning to release in the next few weeks an advisory at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/advisories-2012-02-25-en describing the considerations that registries should have when migrating ROIDs. I have attached a draft of the advisory and would appreciate any input you may have by 17 August. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, -- Francisco Arias Director, Technical Services Domain Name Services & Industry Engagement Global Domains Division ICANN

2 5