Re: Standard Extensions

On 24/08/2012 02:29, James Mitchell wrote:
> I am having trouble identifying the problem that this extension aims to
> solve. Is the use case for this consider transport mechanisms other than
> TCP with TLS (and client authentication)? Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

The use cases I came up with are described in the draft. ⌘C, ⌘V:

2.  Use Cases

   Digital signatures may be useful in a number of scenarios, such as:

   1.  a registry which charges a very high fee for object provisioning,
       where the cost of refunds and chargebacks is sufficiently high
       that it is necessary to deter frivolous registration requests.

   2.  a registry operating at a high level of security, where defence-
       in-depth and the need to provide a full audit trail require
       strong authenticity of provisioning requests.

   3.  future extensions to EPP may permit use of transport protocols
       such as SMTP [RFC5321] or XMPP [RFC6120], which cannot provide
       end-to-end authenticity of frames.

G.

-- 
Gavin Brown
Chief Technology Officer
CentralNic Ltd
Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
https://www.centralnic.com/

CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company
number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg