RE: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Update

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Update
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> 2006-06-19 16:50
> > I've been intermittently working on an EPP implementation 
> report (see
> > section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026) for the last few months.  The 
> good news is
> > that the people I've been working with have described 
> implementations
> > that cover most of the required and optional features in 
> the core EPP
> > specifications.
> 
> I would be very much interested in participating in any way possible.
> I'm the author of a GPL-licensed software called Net::DRI, which is
> a toolkit implementing RRP, EPP, and other registries protocols
> (namely, at least, RFCs
> 2832,3632,3730,3731,3732,3733,3734,3735,3915,4114, and 4310).
> 
> All information is there :
> http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/index.en
> (also in French for those prefering French).
> It is used in live operations by various registrars in various
> TLD.
> 
> >  The bad news is that there are a few optional features
> > that no one has yet described as "implemented".  These include:
> > 
> > 1. Domain transfer authorization using the "roid" attribute.
> 
> Implemented in my software.

Do you know of any registrars that are using this feature, Patrick?  We
need two independently developed implementations to meet the
proposed-to-draft requirements.

> > 2. Offline review of domain, host, and contact transform 
> operations.  In
> > truth, one registrar has reported that they have successfully tested
> > this feature with domains and hosts, but I want to confirm 
> that before
> > reporting success.
> 
> Partially (until I understand better) implemented in my software.
> The latest version implements parsing of panData result.
> It was not clear from my reading of the RFC how things should
> operate in other cases.

I'd like to understand what you don't understand, too.  The protocol
spec doesn't describe how the actual offline review works since that's
something that should be done according to registry practices that are
outside the protocol.  If something else isn't clear we have a chance to
add text when the -bis documents are updated again.

Same question as above: do you know of any registrars that are using
this feature?

-Scott-