Re: Registry lock - two-factor or intervention

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: Jacques Latour; [email protected]; Stuart Olmstead-Wilcox
> Subject: Re: [provreg] Registry lock - two-factor or intervention
> 
> 
> On 18 Sep 2013, at 18:56, "Hollenbeck, Scott"
> <[email protected]>
>  wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> >> Behalf Of Jacques Latour
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 1:29 PM
> >> To: [email protected]; Stuart Olmstead-Wilcox
> >> Subject: Re: [provreg] Registry lock - two-factor or intervention
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Should we have an industry standard way of doing registry lock? {
> >> registrant <--> registrar <--> registry }
> >
> > I'm more than a little concerned that something that flows through
> the registrar can be called a *registry* lock. Locks that flow through
> and can be set or unset by the registrar more appropriately affect the
> client*Prohibited status values.
> 
> Scott
> 
> It depends on how it's implemented surely?
> 
> As a registrar I *might* like the idea of being able to "flag" with the
> registry that we want to add or remove a registry lock
> 
> But I'd be wary of my EPP commands / connection being able to set or
> unset it, as I'd see that as undermining the very nature of a highly
> secure registry lock.
> 
> My understanding of the "registry lock" services being offered by
> several registries and being requested by registrants (see the thread
> from late last year from Warren) is that the "attraction" or "selling
> point" is that the lock status has to be set (and removed) using "out
> of bounds" methods.

My original intention for the server*Prohibited status values was focused more on registry-initiated actions like dealing with a court order that didn't require initiation by a registrar. Their use in implementing an on-demand lock service was a serendipitous side effect.

Anyway, yes, if the idea is to communicate some sort of request to the registry to perform an out-of-band locking action it could be done via EPP. As you noted there would need to be an additional out-of-band mechanism in place to validate the request.

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