Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?
Wil Tan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACnMJCPo0tD5kFx5qdeO2LTbKvH0at3N4Aj-_kQV=U6xpSbOVg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Gregory Berezowsky <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or >> extensions for Verisign, but I'm worried about the timing of the need for >> these specs and ICANN's launch schedule. Coming to agreement on a standard >> approach in a short amount of time is going to be a challenge. >> > > I am also interested in participating on standardizing this. At Afilias, > we have similar concerns on the timing. > > Cloud Registry is also willing to contribute towards standardizing this. There is at least a small amount of overlap of requirements between the TMCH flows and the launchphase draft that Gavin and I wrote. The Launchphase extension has provisions for carrying the "sunrisecode" (called "pvrc" in the draft) but defines an "application" object which we think is a common need during sunrise and other launch phases where multiple requests for a domain name is allowed. In theory we could integrate the claims data / ack bits from the TMC draft into it, but it doesn't seem the most elegant and smells like scope creep. On the other hand, I think registries and registrars would probably want to see a single extension rather than multiple. The draft expired in the midst of the gTLD application period "extension" but I've made some progress integrating some of James Gould's comments into the draft and we're preparing to work on it further. We're open to collaboration: https://github.com/cloudregistry/EPP-Launch-Phase-Extension-Specification .wil _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg