To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:07:58 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070158AE9B@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Update
Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: Hi Scott, as your probably know, CORE has recently implemented the puntCAT registry, which also supports EPP as described in RFCs 3730 to 3735. > 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. 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. Not for domain transfers, but domain and contact info commands. (Also for defensive registrations, but as they are not covered by the standards, that probably doesn't matter.) For security reasons, we decided to not accept roids of associated objects for the domain transfer, but only the authinfo of the domain itself. > > 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. Yes, depending on the credentials supplied via an extension, the system decides whether an off-line review is required or not. If so, 1001 is returned, the pendingCreate status value is set and at the end of the review, a panData message is dispatched by the system. The only deviation is that we allow a deletion of the domain object despite the pendingCreate to allow the abort of the review process of an unwanted domain (as part of the grace period). > > Has anyone implemented either of these two features? The whole offline > review thing was added at the request of folks who reported a need for a > human to review requests before they could be acted upon. I sure hope > that someone who requested the feature actually implemented it! > > The current set of -bis drafts expired in May. I'm planning to update > them when I have a complete implementation report so we can seriously > talk to the IESG about moving the documents to draft standard status. > > -Scott- > Regards, Klaus ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9 Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0