Hi Antoin and all, I apologies for my late contribution on this subject, as a backend that has implemented (albeit an older draft) of the maintenance draft, I have the following to share on the list of actions posted by James Gould on 2021-01-15 (that would be my local date in Melbourne, Australia).
1. Need for a formatted HTML description, since notices currently include formatted HTML content. Quoc: I don’t think this is needed, I see the intent to be a machine to machine notification, the presence of an optional URI (maint:detail) provides details that are more human friendly which the client server may pass onto their users as needed. I assume this comment is in relation to HTML formatted email notices sent to Registrars, if this assumption is true, I don’t think that making the maintenance object be like for like with an email notice is needed. Often HTML formatted email is a decision to format the presentation of the information so that it looks “nice” and is formatted to corporate standards. Another use case for this to not be required is that in some emails it contains attachments, there’s no way in replicating that in the maintenance object. 1. How to signal the maintenance of an entire system versus the maintenance of an individual or set of TLDs on the system Quoc: I find the use of maint:impact in combination of maint:tld as reasonable. Our system supports multiple TLDs from a single end point and so we use this combination as needed. For instance if there was maintenance specific for .biz we would only report BIZ in the maint:tld list. Also what I would like to share is what is being referred to as maintenance? Things of a technical nature is pretty straight forward, e.g. software upgrade, so TLDs are hosted on a single system then when there is an upgrade to the backend then maintenance will be performed on ALL TLDs. However what if there is an UPDATE to a TLD which is not software related but more business driven. E.g. if there is a TLD registration policy update, this I don’t see as qualifying as a maintenance but today there would be an email notification to all Registrars with access to the TLD being updated. In spirit of simplicity I only would consider maintenance of a technical nature in the maintenance object. 1. Support for courtesy (e.g., 2 weeks, 1 week, 2 days, 1 day prior to maintenance) notices and maintenance end notices. Quoc: Noting that this is a suggestion for a "courtesy", I find this unnecessary as the consumer here is a machine. So when a maintenance object is created only single object is created and it’s expected that the client server stores the date and time reported and set their own reminders. If this was an email notification for humans to read then that’s a different matter (not to say that reminders are not needed). Of course if the WG thinks it’s good to send out service messages at a 2 week, 1 week, 2 day and 1 day before the maintenance then I’ll be OK to implement as a courtesy however I would suggest that clients that read the message implement a scaling interval that they are comfortable with. Regards Quoc Pham GoDaddy Registry | Senior Product Manager [https://email-sig.gd-resources.net/img/godaddy-registry-logo-outline.png] +61398663710 Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3004 quoc@registry.godaddy<mailto:quoc@registry.godaddy> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 1:40 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-09 Notice: This email is from an external sender. This WGLC formally ended last week. The chairs are concerned that there are still outstanding comments to be addressed. Also, apart from from the authors, we did not see any support from other WG participants. We will take back this document into the working group to get this support and to address the outstanding comments. Regards Jim and Antoin Op 18 jan. 2021, om 15:59 heeft Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl<mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> het volgende geschreven: James, Just to note for the record, I was surprised by your surprise ;-), since the document authors asked us for a WGLC in December. We waited for January 4th after version 09 was published that addressed your previous feedback. We were aware that the discussion on the mailing list took place with your previous comments. The WGLC will end today, but seeing your new comments, we don’t think this is ready to be submitted to the IESG just yet. A formal closure of this WGLC will follow later this week, but so far I can see no consensus yet, and work still needs to be done. regards, Antoin Op 7 jan. 2021, om 14:39 heeft Gould, James <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> het volgende geschreven: Antoin, I was surprised to see draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance move to WGLC based on the work that has been progressing on the mailing list, so at this point I can’t support publication of the document. The document editors have addressed my prior feedback. Upon a fresh review, below is my feedback: 1. Upon the draft passing WGLC, the version should be updated to “maintenance-1.0”. This change should not happen now. 2. Section 3.3 “Maintenance Elements” * I’m taking the action item to see how the existing registrar notices map to the elements defined in this section. The registrar notices are free-form currently, but there is some consistency of structure that needs to be evaluated against the formal structure defined in draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance. I anticipate changes to the elements in Section 3.3 “Maintenance Elements” coming out of this mapping exercise. 1. Section 4.1.3 “EPP <info> Command” * Nit – Change “either <maint:id>” to “either the <maint:id> child element” and change “or <maint:list> child element” to “or the <maint:list> child element”. 1. Section 7 “Security Considerations” * It would be worthwhile to consider the security associated with what maintenance information to return back to the client. A registry access point may return maintenance information for many top-level domains (or registry zones), where the client has authorization to access a subset of top-level domains. My recommendation is to define the considerations that take into account authorization of the client. For example: i. “A server MUST only provide maintenance information for clients that are authorized. If a client queries for a maintenance identifier, per section 4.1.3.1 “Info Maintenance Item”, that it’s not authorized to access, the server MUST return an EPP error result code of 2201 [RFC5730]. The list of top-level domains or registry zones returned in the “Info Maintenance Item” response SHOULD be filtered based on the top-level domains or registry zones the client is authorized. Authorization of poll messages is done at the time of poll message insertion and not at the time of poll message consumption.” ii. The poll message use case is a corner case, but I believe it’s important to cover it. 1. Section 9 “References” * I believe that draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces would need to move into the Normative References since it’s referenced in a normative sentence. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/verisign.com/__;!!N14HnBHF!rXciEdr0y7e4Tn3TRxCq-cIibUCvHOuqi6EnnXD8hOttUMJWl_QgzJRXuOrasCiqQUfUC-uM$> <http://verisigninc.com/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/verisigninc.com/__;!!N14HnBHF!rXciEdr0y7e4Tn3TRxCq-cIibUCvHOuqi6EnnXD8hOttUMJWl_QgzJRXuOrasCiqQeTxQ5QV$>> On 1/4/21, 9:40 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of i...@antoin.nl<mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> wrote: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: https://secure-web.cisco.com/18eaw5Rc7eRHLW7NT557WL-OEIuRsuRZfA7LKp3BJ8CRDnwUbnkSep_2VLycXzaOvmv49tji_vZXkav_WSa0LDImf7iVSPHuVnheksrC-Z4yjC-TCdX06-Lys-gkODiVilrOZp1WOmoSapmIw9J5pD0-c_UpkQYAeekRFAzwm17KphqdWz9cW1VprZlDOloub5pH3QB11p7XdAbJQOs_f-_NiiPLxZDEVHyLx2QvUBtzvazi50NwL3TPdpF2dVgB7vFSXzLopwYOp3mnMp-e1dw/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance%2F<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/18eaw5Rc7eRHLW7NT557WL-OEIuRsuRZfA7LKp3BJ8CRDnwUbnkSep_2VLycXzaOvmv49tji_vZXkav_WSa0LDImf7iVSPHuVnheksrC-Z4yjC-TCdX06-Lys-gkODiVilrOZp1WOmoSapmIw9J5pD0-c_UpkQYAeekRFAzwm17KphqdWz9cW1VprZlDOloub5pH3QB11p7XdAbJQOs_f-_NiiPLxZDEVHyLx2QvUBtzvazi50NwL3TPdpF2dVgB7vFSXzLopwYOp3mnMp-e1dw/https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fdraft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance*2F__;JSUlJSUl!!N14HnBHF!rXciEdr0y7e4Tn3TRxCq-cIibUCvHOuqi6EnnXD8hOttUMJWl_QgzJRXuOrasCiqQbxqlD6M$> This WG last call will end at close of business, Monday, 18 Januari 2021. Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by replying to this message on the list. The document shepherd for this document is James Galvin. Regards, Antoin and Jim _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1CE4ls-J9vyi17Z5wA242rs-KkkAsctHnLiGKkA_kgQavoiXTstq55sAh91oQYVV3zS33dzM8y3GY1nYLN4gSGgjfS09ccNXbUlpHFZUgbKtUIvuU45KQpfmOn-jqJA_nGG3Bfz4IRazNKf73lHiol397BADwass3Bi3_isz7AZ066VdhCChq6fGBvIuMmp-d-elI3ur-dS4rOm7bxi21gHhBvucBpJV6ajYIeoANmEpcOT0grGvxyqHJhTTHLr9bUv34eF1HxM1l-LBv3jiguZli7S0kkBSRiHe6IGjd7Hg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1CE4ls-J9vyi17Z5wA242rs-KkkAsctHnLiGKkA_kgQavoiXTstq55sAh91oQYVV3zS33dzM8y3GY1nYLN4gSGgjfS09ccNXbUlpHFZUgbKtUIvuU45KQpfmOn-jqJA_nGG3Bfz4IRazNKf73lHiol397BADwass3Bi3_isz7AZ066VdhCChq6fGBvIuMmp-d-elI3ur-dS4rOm7bxi21gHhBvucBpJV6ajYIeoANmEpcOT0grGvxyqHJhTTHLr9bUv34eF1HxM1l-LBv3jiguZli7S0kkBSRiHe6IGjd7Hg/https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fregext__;JSUlJSUl!!N14HnBHF!rXciEdr0y7e4Tn3TRxCq-cIibUCvHOuqi6EnnXD8hOttUMJWl_QgzJRXuOrasCiqQY9PEEY0$> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext__;!!N14HnBHF!rXciEdr0y7e4Tn3TRxCq-cIibUCvHOuqi6EnnXD8hOttUMJWl_QgzJRXuOrasCiqQU3N1qRn$> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext__;!!N14HnBHF!rXciEdr0y7e4Tn3TRxCq-cIibUCvHOuqi6EnnXD8hOttUMJWl_QgzJRXuOrasCiqQU3N1qRn$>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
