Re: Standard Extensions

On 19/01/2012, at 1:50 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> Let's assume for a moment that we have enough interest to form a working group focused on the development of a set of standard EPP extensions. If we had to start writing a charter today, what functionality would people most like to see included?

Two extensions that are on my todo list to write up but never get to the top:

1.  Cryptographic signatures.   Lots of XML apps do this using a variety of mechanisms:

	- PGP in special tags <pgp></pgp>
	- S/MIME as used in XMPP (Jabber)
	- SAMLv2.0 HTTP POST 'SimpleSign’ Binding
	- Detached PGP signatures (as per .nz DNRS protocol)
	- but not XML-Dsig – complete disaster (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/ xmlsec.txt)

2.  Delegation errors/warnings.  A variety of TLDs check the delegation data and the nameservers before entering the data into their zones (note, in .nz we do not).  Such checks include whether the nameserver are serving the zone, whether the serial numbers are the same, whether all the authorities reported are being configured in the parent zone and so on.  

A standard extension around this would be useful for
- a TLD that does checks advertising that fact (and what those checks are)
- reporting failures if doing checks
- optional support for a TLD that will provide this information to a registrar upon request, but not run proactive checks or interfere with the delegation process


Then there is the big change to the core protocol I've always wanted to do:

3.  Change the command extension mechanism to use SubstitutionGroup to give first class extensions.  


And finally something for us to think about:

4.  Currently EPP *defines* a data model for domain name registrations, which fits gTLDs and some ccTLDs but not all (note, it does fit the .nz data model).   If the ICANN data model changes at any point then amending EPP will require lots of effort all round.  It might be better to pre-empt this by moving to an alternative approach where the EPP protocol is used to *describe* the registration data expected.  If then it was agreed that all gTLD registrations must include say a registrant type as they have in .uk, then this could be added merely by updating the description the servers send rather than the protocol.


cheers
Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg