Re: Standard Extensions

Now we already had the draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping, which is the
DNSSEC mapping for the provisioning and management of Chinese Domain Names.
We also want to do a DNSSEC extension for IDN based on the above draft.

Regards,
Linlin Zhou

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Hollenbeck, Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:45 PM
> To: Patrik Fältström
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] 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

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