On Tue, Jan 2, 2018, at 15:11, Gould, James wrote: > I believe the only fields missing include the > reference to the RDDS services (WHOIS, RDAP). To keep the organization > generic, this could be defined as a list of servers that may be set for > an organization.
This list of servers will have absolutely no meaning for organizations not being registrars. So the extension cease to be generic. > I’m not asking or proposing a requirement to implement the org > extensions, (I fear however that this could be a future outcome, if the use of the extension becomes mandatory to conduct transfers). > but asking whether with the org extensions over the secure > EPP protocol would be a better option than registrars getting > information from the registries via an insecure channel that may become > further restricted. I am not saying the contrary, but: - I think that the feature can be done otherwise/by other extensions - I do not want this extension to be suddenly perceived as absolutely mandatory because it is tied to the proper handling of transfers between registrars. I note that there was never a suggestion in the past if my memory works to introduce an extension to store registrars, so maybe the need to do that to better handle transfers was not obvious. There was for resellers, and then later it transformed into a generic organization handling. > If the registries do have the registrar > information, then why can’t the registries provide the information over > EPP to the registrars to support transfers? They sure can. And maybe should. But we lived many years without that anyway. > Why would you propose to create many small, targeted extensions to cover > specific use cases instead of leveraging a more generic extension that > is itself extensible (e.g., roles and servers) to support many use > cases. I'm inclined to the Unix philosophy of having many small tools that you can compose to produce what you need instead of a monolithic one trying to cover all cases and finally not being good in any case. I am not proposing to create other extensions because, as you already stated there is already one extension existing covering exactly the use case you are speaking about. As I said previously I would far more favor works towards making the existing extension a true standard used by multiple registries. Does Verisign plan to stop using its own extension and using instead the generic organization one we are talking about here if it includes the changes related to registrars whois/rdap servers? > I agree that the registrar information is best defined in a central > registry as opposed to be replicated to each of the registries. So I think this is the true issue to tackle but probably outside of this working group charter and also far more difficult, as not only purely technical level. I would theoritically prefer to see more energy spent on solving this issue at a generic level instead of hoping to solve it just with an EPP extension. > I believe > the point is that the registrars may need to know the sponsoring > registrar information to support the transfer policy, and the org > extensions provide the most secure and stable mechanism for this. So you are saying that the current EPP WhoisInfo extension designed to help registrars conduct transfers is not suited to do that? -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
