Re: Standard Extensions

At least one person did that, Patrik (and I inadvertently missed them when compiling the list below):

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/current/msg06776.html

I didn't see any follow-up to the list provides by James. I believe that some of the items in the list below *are* implemented private extensions. Yes, it would be helpful to identify those.

Could you identify any extensions you've had to implement to work with different registries?

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:37 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] Standard Extensions
> 
> I think registries should first list whatever private extensions they
> have, and see whether they can not be standardized. Do not increase the
> number of extensions...
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> 22 aug 2012 kl. 13:32 skrev "Hollenbeck, Scott"
> <[email protected]>:
> 
> > It's been a long time since I started this thread back in January.
> Someone recently asked me a question about an EPP extension, so I
> thought it wise to see if I could revisit the discussion and post a
> summary. Here's the original question:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > and here's a summary of the suggestions (my apologies if I missed
> any), including new efforts that have recently surfaced:
> >
> > 1. A garbage collection mechanism.
> >
> > 2. Extension for registrars to get registry/zone policy information.
> >
> > 3. Extension to provide account status information to registrars.
> >
> > 4. An IDN extension*.
> >
> > 5. A TLD launch extension*.
> >
> > 6. A trademark management extension*.
> >
> > 7. Standardized registry-to-registrar notifications.
> >
> > 8. An extension for VAT and/or tax ID information.
> >
> > 9. An extension for a legal/personal attribute on contact objects.
> >
> > 10. An extension for additional status value and/or result codes,
> perhaps with an associated IANA registry.
> >
> > 11. An extension for cryptographic signatures.
> >
> > 12. An extension for delegation errors/warnings.
> >
> > Those that are described in a draft I've seen are marked with an
> asterisk. IMHO twelve is probably too many to bootstrap a new working
> group. If we could whittle this down to 6 or 7 AND we have actual
> drafts written for consideration it may be possible for us to get
> something going.
> >
> > Which of the above topics has been addressed in a draft? Who is
> willing to write drafts for those topics that haven't yet been
> addressed?
> >
> > Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > provreg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
> >

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