Re: Standard Extensions

Hello all,

    We have several private extensions which are not summited as rfc
drafts and some extensions which are summited as rfc drafts.

Not summit:
1.Real information extension for the contact object.
2.Information for purveyor for both contact and domain objects.
If you are interest in these, I'd like to share some information.

RFC Draft:
1.CDN(chinese domain name) extension for the domain
object;(draft-kong-epp-cdn-mapping)
2.CDN DNSSEC extension for the domain
object;(draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping)
3.IDN extension for the domain object;(draft-kong-epp-idn-mapping)

BTW,we have interest to form a working group focused on the development
of a set of standard EPP extensions.

Kind regards,
-- 
Kevin Tse <[email protected]>
CNNIC

On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 12:02 +0800, Linlin Zhou wrote:
> 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

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iJwEAAECAAYFAlA1rhgACgkQatMoyEN1mK+sKgP/WrrPiNJwZ7lWOUwJGtXnBVF1
+YOu7vX4j5az1g57PmhMLjq/29WDG6s8X+EsfGuUGtGh6OTXln5OX6Tv6ipNoG55
NeaxdwuSAYYC8Y/arVhK2jwmAoKVXVv7/Wp6Kj8KcHXHmZVFb+Vmc8pRN4yEEjhL
SGtU7Qh4kfX2J1KLtTI=
=b9y0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----