From n_aizawa@access.co.jp Mon Dec 1 10:00:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2345A28C0E2 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:00:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.828 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QR8u3fEPUxYx for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from 159.Red-88-31-148.staticIP.rima-tde.net (159.Red-88-31-148.staticIP.rima-tde.net [88.31.148.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D17F3A6B3D for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: clever chance to upper it From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081201180001.6D17F3A6B3D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From mburgos@afip.gov.ar Mon Dec 1 14:12:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D4E3A67AD for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:12:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rnS6pZq1ieM for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from advanstar.com (unknown [92.113.108.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E0B03A680E for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:12:39 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: like those greek statue has From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081201221241.2E0B03A680E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:12:39 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From miller@americanexpress-travel.com Tue Dec 2 05:41:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C913A6781 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -41.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-41.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHMFfm2tpwbr for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from alexlee.com (unknown [201.80.52.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 325153A68B6 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:22 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081202134125.325153A68B6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:22 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage. From nietokcordova@alegropcs.net Tue Dec 2 06:19:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D773A6A47 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:19:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -19.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5VL35Smwx3W for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ambrosi.com (85-250-143-51.bb.netvision.net.il [85.250.143.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 52DFD3A67A1 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:19:01 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: longevity can be bought From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081202141902.52DFD3A67A1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:19:01 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From klagenfurt.regionalkasse@ampega.de Wed Dec 3 16:15:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BA128C1E1 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.684, BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksb9q+z918D7 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:15:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from 85-250-93-13.bb.netvision.net.il (85-250-93-13.bb.netvision.net.il [85.250.93.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 290E828C1B8 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:14:59 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081204001501.290E828C1B8@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:14:59 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage. From jjwvxeipqua@aceb.fr Thu Dec 4 11:46:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B912B3A689E for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:46:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.16 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hzBmK+tF8mn2 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:46:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from port-ip-213-211-247-90.sta.reverse.mdcc-fun.de (port-ip-213-211-247-90.sta.reverse.mdcc-fun.de [213.211.247.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 288093A67FF for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:46:55 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081204194657.288093A67FF@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:46:55 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage From j.leahy@americanhotel.com Fri Dec 5 11:22:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD50A3A6C89 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:22:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -38.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-38.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yyQooVxnqph7 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1-800-psychic.com (unknown [190.157.48.241]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B92633A6B4C for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:22:48 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081205192248.B92633A6B4C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:22:48 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From jokum@achilles.com Fri Dec 5 18:30:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A06F3A6986 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:30:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.577 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HOST_EQ_DHCP=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPd7yZ5GtwRI for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nv-67-232-143-104.dhcp.embarqhsd.net (nv-67-232-143-104.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.232.143.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C11583A692E for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:30:42 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081206023042.C11583A692E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:30:42 -0800 (PST) Click to visit Official Web Site! From kasey_losch@aeat-qsa.com Sat Dec 6 03:44:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E483A69B2 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:44:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pu6tKsasI6rV for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from amcautomation.com (unknown [81.214.81.129]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 340163A694C for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:44:23 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081206114424.340163A694C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:44:23 -0800 (PST) Click to visit Official Web Site! From acooke@crosbie-casco.co.uk Sat Dec 6 05:05:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289503A6974; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:05:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.83 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iit3+HByFkNX; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc-48-39-120-200.cm.vtr.net (pc-48-39-120-200.cm.vtr.net [200.120.39.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B3A73A6A24; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:05:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:05:27 -0500 From: "Cecil Brewer" Subject: Franck Muller better than original To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Cecil How about buying yourself a two Omega watches the same day? It's not impossible, mostly when you can get them for a couple hundred bucks http://www.niyubkab.com/ We are offering wholesaler prices on all watches during the month of December. http://www.niyubkab.com/ Sincerely, Mr Brewer From albert.horan@boi.ie Sat Dec 6 09:56:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9203A67AC; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.504 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3haVFOGtcYcr; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 101-106-21-190.adsl.terra.cl (101-106-21-190.adsl.terra.cl [190.21.106.101]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8973C3A680A; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:56:26 -0500 From: "Federico Lockett" Subject: Patek Phillipe watch for a christmas gift To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Federico If you've waited to get your IWC watch, this is the right time to go for it. http://www.pawovyaj.com/ Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.pawovyaj.com/ Sincerely, Mr Lockett From d_otelepko@kbm.kz Sat Dec 6 14:11:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8423A68BC; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:11:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.947 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bR6i4VyPQNPA; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from 190-79-77-201.dyn.dsl.cantv.net (unknown [190.79.77.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F13BD3A67ED; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:11:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:11:13 -0500 From: "Francisca John" Subject: Christmas IWC watches bargain To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Francisca How about buying yourself a two Cartier watches the same day? It's not impossible, mostly when you can get them for a couple hundred bucks http://www.niyubkab.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.niyubkab.com/ Sincerely, Mr John From anthonyd@tafabrasivi.it Sun Dec 7 00:33:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BE03A67B6; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:33:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.964 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FRT_ROLEX=3.878, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bf1vcVGU7rjM; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from chello089079013158.chello.pl (chello089079013158.chello.pl [89.79.13.158]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C86B3A6850; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:33:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:32:17 -0500 From: "Charley Bush" Subject: Ro lex watch for a christmas gift To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Charley How about buying yourself a two Gucci watches the same day? It's not impossible, mostly when you can get them for a couple hundred bucks http://www.niyubkab.com/ From mubimba.mmulliken@almaden.ibm.com Sun Dec 7 04:38:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2B23A6862 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 04:38:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bAY-4U8m1brV for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 04:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from nat-goc-1.aster.pl (nat-goc-1.aster.pl [212.76.37.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ED5C3A684A for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 04:38:14 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081207123815.9ED5C3A684A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 04:38:14 -0800 (PST) Click to visit Official Web Site! From mrouq@accucaps.com Sun Dec 7 06:48:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACDD3A68F0 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:48:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -39.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-39.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CfZyUAPXVF-k for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ahss.org (unknown [201.82.183.192]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 318153A68E1 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:48:33 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081207144834.318153A68E1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:48:33 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here! From milda@hadawaynet.com Sun Dec 7 07:49:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8813A6993; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:49:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IcpmuDyfexHP; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from CPE-124-190-235-248.vic.bigpond.net.au (CPE-124-190-235-248.vic.bigpond.net.au [124.190.235.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 176433A6992; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:48:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:48:38 -0500 From: "Berry Orozco" Subject: Cartier watch for a christmas gift To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Berry Looking for a Franck Muller watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.punihkek.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.punihkek.com/ Sincerely, Mr Orozco From habouzeid@sewedy.com.eg Sun Dec 7 09:45:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F6D3A69C9; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:45:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -30.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-30.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hPAjVO1wlscX; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from xt23b9.stansat.pl (xt23b9.stansat.pl [83.243.35.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E31F928B797; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:45:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:45:14 -0500 From: "Shelby Buckner" Subject: Take a look at the Tag Heuer watches To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Shelby Looking for a Omega watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.nazedlav.com/ With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.nazedlav.com/ Sincerely, Mr Buckner From nba_maniadd@007-jamesbond.com Sun Dec 7 15:09:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082BB3A69F0 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -29.982 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-29.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPOTSnhA66qP for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from port0080-aef-adsl.cwjamaica.com (port0080-aef-adsl.cwjamaica.com [72.27.66.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 772643A693C for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:00 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081207230900.772643A693C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:09:00 -0800 (PST) Click here! From dieter@temfilter.com Mon Dec 8 04:58:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0383A6A83; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:58:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.745 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V4pIrGjz5K3w; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppp-58-8-245-144.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-58-8-245-144.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.8.245.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C3A63A6784; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:57:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:57:33 -0500 From: "Desiree Potts" Subject: Omega better than original To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Desiree Looking for a Longines watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.nazedlav.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.nazedlav.com/ Sincerely, Mr Potts From pg.vandam@vdim.nl Mon Dec 8 14:08:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2236728C0FF; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:08:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awGIeRBL4Aiu; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-015-77-220.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br (189-015-77-220.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br [189.15.77.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2231B28C102; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:07:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:07:44 -0500 From: "Bradford Powers" Subject: Take a look at the Emporio Armani watches To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bradford Looking for a Bvlgari watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.yovurzok.com/ Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.yovurzok.com/ Sincerely, Mr Powers From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 09:20:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6E13A68C5 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:20:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.007 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4sD9JpPcTdiI for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:20:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8AD3A6806 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:20:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9H4PkC018661 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:25 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9H4Pfl009228 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:25 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9H4ObZ017118 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9GxxOC010329 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:59:59 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:04:23 -0500 Received: from 10.131.29.236 ([10.131.29.236]) by dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:04:22 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:04:20 -0500 Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question From: James Gould To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQ== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3311669061_6430164" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:04:23.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F857AE0:01C95A20] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3311669061_6430164 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations o= f the extension. =20 The specification allows adding (), removing (), an= d changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can=B9t be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : =20 To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: =20 Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? --=20 JG=20 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior writte= n consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. --B_3311669061_6430164 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability i= ssue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of = the extension.  

The specification allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<secDNS:= rem>), and changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XM= L schema they can’t be done at the same time.  Below is from the = RFC 4210 XML schema for the <secDNS:update>:

     <complexType name=3D"updateT= ype">
      <choice>
         <element name=3D"= ;add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
         <element name=3D&quo= t;chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
         <element name=3D&quo= t;rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType"/>
      </choice>
       <attribute name=3D"urgent&qu= ot; type=3D"boolean" default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType>
To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the= Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used?  I= updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain M= apping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem:

  =    <complexType name=3D"u= pdateType">
      <sequence>
         <element name=3D"= ;add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” /= >
         <element name=3D&quo= t;chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” = />
         <element name=3D&quo= t;rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType" minOccurs=3D”0”= />
      </sequence>
       <attribute name=3D"urgent&qu= ot; type=3D"boolean" default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType>
Has any of the current implementations come across this issue?  

--


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, propriet= ary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the reci= pient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed with= out the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Service= s.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please = notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy= the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.
 --B_3311669061_6430164-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 10:03:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899163A6ABD for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:03:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.759 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sH2oNrVErhca for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:03:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357913A6917 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:03:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9Hn3pH005203 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:49:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9Hn3x2011382 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:49:03 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9Hn2Aj002127 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:49:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9Hib28012126 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:44:37 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:49:01 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:49:04 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC5F9@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQABR6+g References: From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Gould, James" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:49:01.0662 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B8FE7E0:01C95A26] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim, I think I might have just remembered a use case that makes the a problem. Imagine if it were possible to create a command that looks like this: =20 12345 12345 3 1 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC =20 Is the server supposed to remove or change the data associated with keyTag 12345? With the existing schema there's no ambiguity. -Scott-=20 =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James Gould Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question =09 =09 In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of the extension. =20 =09 The specification allows adding (), removing (), and changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can't be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : =09 =09 To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: =09 =09 Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? =20 =09 --=20 =09 =09 JG=20 =09 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =09 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 =09 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability = Question
Jim, I think I might have just = remembered a use=20 case that makes the <sequence> a problem.  = Imagine=20 if it were possible to create a command that looks like=20 this:
 
<secDNS:update
  =20 xmlns:secDNS=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0"
  =20 xsi:schemaLocation=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0=20 secDNS-1.0.xsd">
  =20 <secDNS:rem>
    =20 <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
  =20 </secDNS:rem>
  =20 <secDNS:chg>
    =20 <secDNS:dsData>
      =20 <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
   &nb= sp;   <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
 &nbs= p;    =20 <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
   = ;   =20 <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
 =    =20 </secDNS:dsData>
   = </secDNS:chg>
</secDNS:update>
 
Is the server supposed to remove or change the = data=20 associated with keyTag 12345?  With the existing schema there's no=20 ambiguity.

-Scott-

 

From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James=20 Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 = PM
To:=20 ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP = Extension=20 (RFC 4310) Usability Question

In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC = 4310) I=20 noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the = existing implementations of the extension.  

The = specification=20 allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<secDNS:rem>), and = changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XML schema = they=20 can’t be done at the same time.  Below is from the RFC 4210 = XML schema=20 for the <secDNS:update>:

    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <cho= ice>
        <elemen= t=20 name=3D"add"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"chg"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"rem"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:remType"/>
      &l= t;/choice>
      <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

To=20 allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in = the=20 Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? =  I=20 updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the = Domain=20 Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and=20 rem:

  =20    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <seq= uence>
        <elem= ent=20 name=3D"add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” = = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” = = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
      </sequence>
=       <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

Has any of the current implementations = come across=20 this issue?  

--=20


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
= James F. = Gould
Principal Software=20 Engineer
VeriSign Naming=20 Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct:=20 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 = Ridgetop=20 Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient: =  This e-mail contains confidential, = proprietary and/or=20 Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient = and,=20 thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without = the prior=20 written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. =  If=20 you have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify = the sender=20 immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the = original=20 message without making a  copy.  Thank=20 you.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 10:06:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C293A6ABD for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:06:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZT-kl18NIhXg for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16593A6917 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9HuM86020357 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:56:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9HuMli008354 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:56:22 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9HuLet029628 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:56:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.139]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9HpI35031152 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:51:18 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:56:20 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE" Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:56:19 -0500 Message-ID: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQABR6+gAACJP9U= From: "Gould, James" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:56:20.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[71192EF0:01C95A27] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 U2NvdHQsDQoNCkkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHVwIHRvIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIgcG9saWN5 IHRvIGRlZmluZSB0aGUgbWl4IG9mIHVwZGF0ZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgdmFsaWQuIFRoZSBwcm90b2Nv bCBjb3VsZCBzdXBwb3J0IGEgbWl4IHVubGVzcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBzb21lIHNwZWNpZmljIHJlYXNv biB3aHkgaXQgc2hvdWxkbid0LiBBIHNpbWlsYXIgdXNlIGNhc2UgY291bGQgYXBwbHkgdG8gdGhl IGRvbWFpbiBtYXBwaW5nIHdoZXJlIGFuIHVwZGF0ZSBpbmNsdWRlcyBhbiBhZGQgYW5kIHJlbW92 ZSBvZiB0aGUgc2FtZSBzdGF0dXMgb3IgbmFtZSBzZXJ2ZXIuDQoNCkppbSANCkphbWVzIEYuIEdv dWxkIA0KDQpQcmljaXBhbCBTb2Z0d2FyZSBFbmdpbmVlciANClZlcmlTaWduIEluYy4NCg0KX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRnJvbTogSG9sbGVuYmVjaywgU2NvdHQg DQpUbzogR291bGQsIEphbWVzOyBpZXRmLXByb3ZyZWdAY2FmYXguc2UgDQpTZW50OiBUdWUgRGVj IDA5IDEyOjQ5OjA0IDIwMDgNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBbaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnXSBETlNTRUMgRVBQ IEV4dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTApIFVzYWJpbGl0eSBRdWVzdGlvbiANCg0KDQpKaW0sIEkgdGhp bmsgSSBtaWdodCBoYXZlIGp1c3QgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCBhIHVzZSBjYXNlIHRoYXQgbWFrZXMgdGhl IDxzZXF1ZW5jZT4gYSBwcm9ibGVtLiAgSW1hZ2luZSBpZiBpdCB3ZXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIGNy ZWF0ZSBhIGNvbW1hbmQgdGhhdCBsb29rcyBsaWtlIHRoaXM6DQogDQo8c2VjRE5TOnVwZGF0ZQ0K ICAgeG1sbnM6c2VjRE5TPSJ1cm46aWV0ZjpwYXJhbXM6eG1sOm5zOnNlY0ROUy0xLjAiDQogICB4 c2k6c2NoZW1hTG9jYXRpb249InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczp4bWw6bnM6c2VjRE5TLTEuMCBzZWNE TlMtMS4wLnhzZCI+DQogICA8c2VjRE5TOnJlbT4NCiAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzprZXlUYWc+MTIzNDU8 L3NlY0ROUzprZXlUYWc+DQogICA8L3NlY0ROUzpyZW0+DQogICA8c2VjRE5TOmNoZz4NCiAgICAg PHNlY0ROUzpkc0RhdGE+DQogICAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzprZXlUYWc+MTIzNDU8L3NlY0ROUzprZXlU YWc+DQogICAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzphbGc+Mzwvc2VjRE5TOmFsZz4NCiAgICAgICA8c2VjRE5TOmRp Z2VzdFR5cGU+MTwvc2VjRE5TOmRpZ2VzdFR5cGU+DQogICAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzpkaWdlc3Q+NDlG RDQ2RTZDNEI0NUM1NUQ0QUM8L3NlY0ROUzpkaWdlc3Q+DQogICAgIDwvc2VjRE5TOmRzRGF0YT4N CiAgIDwvc2VjRE5TOmNoZz4NCjwvc2VjRE5TOnVwZGF0ZT4NCiANCklzIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIgc3Vw cG9zZWQgdG8gcmVtb3ZlIG9yIGNoYW5nZSB0aGUgZGF0YSBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGgga2V5VGFn IDEyMzQ1PyAgV2l0aCB0aGUgZXhpc3Rpbmcgc2NoZW1hIHRoZXJlJ3Mgbm8gYW1iaWd1aXR5Lg0K DQotU2NvdHQtIA0KDQogDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0K CUZyb206IG93bmVyLWlldGYtcHJvdnJlZ0BjYWZheC5zZSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLWlldGYtcHJv dnJlZ0BjYWZheC5zZV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEphbWVzIEdvdWxkDQoJU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwg RGVjZW1iZXIgMDksIDIwMDggMTI6MDQgUE0NCglUbzogaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnQGNhZmF4LnNlDQoJ U3ViamVjdDogW2lldGYtcHJvdnJlZ10gRE5TU0VDIEVQUCBFeHRlbnNpb24gKFJGQyA0MzEwKSBV c2FiaWxpdHkgUXVlc3Rpb24NCgkNCgkNCglJbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgdGhlIEROU1NFQyBFUFAgRXh0 ZW5zaW9uIChSRkMgNDMxMCkgSSBub3RpY2VkIG9uZSB1c2FiaWxpdHkgaXNzdWUgdGhhdCBJIHdv dWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gZ2V0IGZlZWRiYWNrIGZyb20gdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9u cyBvZiB0aGUgZXh0ZW5zaW9uLiAgDQoJDQoJVGhlIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gYWxsb3dzIGFkZGlu ZyAoPHNlY0ROUzphZGQ+KSwgcmVtb3ZpbmcgKDxzZWNETlM6cmVtPiksIGFuZCBjaGFuZ2luZyAo PHNlY0ROUzpjaGc+KSBEUyBkYXRhLCBidXQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIHRo ZXkgY2Fu4oCZdCBiZSBkb25lIGF0IHRoZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUuICBCZWxvdyBpcyBmcm9tIHRoZSBS RkMgNDIxMCBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIGZvciB0aGUgPHNlY0ROUzp1cGRhdGU+Og0KCQ0KCSAgICA8Y29t cGxleFR5cGUgbmFtZT0idXBkYXRlVHlwZSI+DQoJICAgICAgPGNob2ljZT4NCgkgICAgICAgIDxl bGVtZW50IG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5TOmRzVHlwZSIvPg0KCSAgICAgICAgIDxlbGVt ZW50IG5hbWU9ImNoZyIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5TOmRzVHlwZSIvPg0KCSAgICAgICAgIDxlbGVtZW50 IG5hbWU9InJlbSIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5TOnJlbVR5cGUiLz4NCgkgICAgICA8L2Nob2ljZT4NCgkg ICAgICA8YXR0cmlidXRlIG5hbWU9InVyZ2VudCIgdHlwZT0iYm9vbGVhbiIgZGVmYXVsdD0iZmFs c2UiLz4NCgkgICAgIDwvY29tcGxleFR5cGU+DQoJDQoJVG8gYWxsb3cgZm9yIGEgbWl4IG9mIGFk ZCwgY2hnLCBhbmQgcmVtLCBzaG91bGQgdGhlIFhNTCBzY2hlbWEgbW9kZWwgaW4gdGhlIERvbWFp biBNYXBwaW5nIChSRkMgNDkzMSkgdXBkYXRlVHlwZSBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIGRlZmluaXRpb24gYmUg dXNlZD8gIEkgdXBkYXRlZCB0aGUgRE5TU0VDIFhNTCBzY2hlbWEgYmVsb3cgdG8gbWF0Y2ggdGhl IGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIERvbWFpbiBNYXBwaW5nLCB0byBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBtaXggb2Yg YWRkLCBjaGcsIGFuZCByZW06DQoJDQoJICAgICAgPGNvbXBsZXhUeXBlIG5hbWU9InVwZGF0ZVR5 cGUiPg0KCSAgICAgIDxzZXF1ZW5jZT4NCgkgICAgICAgIDxlbGVtZW50IG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgdHlw ZT0ic2VjRE5TOmRzVHlwZSIgbWluT2NjdXJzPeKAnTDigJ0gLz4NCgkgICAgICAgICA8ZWxlbWVu dCBuYW1lPSJjaGciIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiIG1pbk9jY3Vycz3igJ0w4oCdIC8+DQoJ ICAgICAgICAgPGVsZW1lbnQgbmFtZT0icmVtIiB0eXBlPSJzZWNETlM6cmVtVHlwZSIgbWluT2Nj dXJzPeKAnTDigJ0gLz4NCgkgICAgICA8L3NlcXVlbmNlPg0KCSAgICAgIDxhdHRyaWJ1dGUgbmFt ZT0idXJnZW50IiB0eXBlPSJib29sZWFuIiBkZWZhdWx0PSJmYWxzZSIvPg0KCSAgICAgPC9jb21w bGV4VHlwZT4NCgkNCglIYXMgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBjb21l IGFjcm9zcyB0aGlzIGlzc3VlPyAgDQoJDQoJLS0gDQoJDQoJDQoJSkcgDQoJDQoJLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KCUphbWVzIEYu IEdvdWxkDQoJUHJpbmNpcGFsIFNvZnR3YXJlIEVuZ2luZWVyDQoJVmVyaVNpZ24gTmFtaW5nIFNl cnZpY2VzDQoJamdvdWxkQHZlcmlzaWduLmNvbQ0KCURpcmVjdDogNzAzLjk0OC4zMjcxDQoJTW9i aWxlOiA3MDMuNjI4LjcwNjMNCgkNCgkgDQoJMjEzNDUgUmlkZ2V0b3AgQ2lyY2xlDQoJTFMyLTIt MQ0KCUR1bGxlcywgVkEgMjAxNjYNCgkNCglOb3RpY2UgdG8gUmVjaXBpZW50OiAgVGhpcyBlLW1h aWwgY29udGFpbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBhbmQvb3IgUmVnaXN0cnkgIFNl bnNpdGl2ZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRlbmRlZCBzb2xlbHkgZm9yIHRoZSByZWNpcGllbnQgYW5k LCB0aHVzIG1heSBub3QgYmUgIHJldHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQsIHJlcHJvZHVjZWQgb3IgZGlzY2xvc2Vk IHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIHByaW9yIHdyaXR0ZW4gY29uc2VudCBvZiAgVmVyaVNpZ24gTmFtaW5nIGFu ZCBEaXJlY3RvcnkgU2VydmljZXMuICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCAgdGhpcyBlLW1haWwg bWVzc2FnZSBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGJ5 ICB0ZWxlcGhvbmUgb3IgcmVwbHkgZS1tYWlsIGFuZCBkZXN0cm95IHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNz YWdlIHdpdGhvdXQgbWFraW5nIGEgIGNvcHkuICBUaGFuayB5b3UuDQoJDQoNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPjxUSVRMRT5ETlNTRUMgRVBQIEV4dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTAp IFVzYWJpbGl0eSBRdWVzdGlvbjwvVElUTEU+DQo8TUVUQSBodHRwLWVxdWl2PUNvbnRlbnQtVHlw ZSBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXMtYXNjaWkiPg0KPE1FVEEgY29udGVudD0i TVNIVE1MIDYuMDAuNjAwMC4xNjczNSIgbmFtZT1HRU5FUkFUT1I+PC9IRUFEPg0KPEJPRFk+PHA+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPW5hdnkgZmFjZT1BcmlhbD4NClNjb3R0LDxicj48YnI+SSBiZWxp ZXZlIHRoYXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXAgdG8gdGhlIHNlcnZlciBwb2xpY3kgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBt aXggb2YgdXBkYXRlcyB0aGF0IGFyZSB2YWxpZC4gIFRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBjb3VsZCBzdXBwb3J0 IGEgbWl4IHVubGVzcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBzb21lIHNwZWNpZmljIHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgaXQgc2hvdWxk bid0LiAgQSBzaW1pbGFyIHVzZSBjYXNlIGNvdWxkIGFwcGx5IHRvIHRoZSBkb21haW4gbWFwcGlu ZyB3aGVyZSBhbiB1cGRhdGUgaW5jbHVkZXMgYW4gYWRkIGFuZCByZW1vdmUgb2YgdGhlIHNhbWUg c3RhdHVzIG9yIG5hbWUgc2VydmVyLjxicj48YnI+SmltDTxicj5KYW1lcyBGLiBHb3VsZA08YnI+ DTxicj5QcmljaXBhbCBTb2Z0d2FyZSBFbmdpbmVlcg08YnI+VmVyaVNpZ24gSW5jLjwvZm9udD48 L3A+DQo8cD48aHIgc2l6ZT0yIHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBhbGlnbj1jZW50ZXIgdGFiaW5kZXg9LTE+ DQo8Zm9udCBmYWNlPVRhaG9tYSBzaXplPTI+DQo8Yj5Gcm9tPC9iPjogSG9sbGVuYmVjaywgU2Nv dHQNPGJyPjxiPlRvPC9iPjogR291bGQsIEphbWVzOyBpZXRmLXByb3ZyZWdAY2FmYXguc2UgPGll dGYtcHJvdnJlZ0BjYWZheC5zZT4NPGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ8L2I+OiBUdWUgRGVjIDA5IDEyOjQ5OjA0 IDIwMDg8YnI+PGI+U3ViamVjdDwvYj46IFJFOiBbaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnXSBETlNTRUMgRVBQIEV4 dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTApIFVzYWJpbGl0eSBRdWVzdGlvbg08YnI+PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCg0K PERJViBkaXI9bHRyIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9MDYzNTk0MDE3LTA5MTIyMDA4PjxG T05UIGZhY2U9IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3IiANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgc2l6ZT0yPkppbSwgSSB0aGlu ayBJIG1pZ2h0IGhhdmUmbmJzcDtqdXN0IHJlbWVtYmVyZWQmbmJzcDthIHVzZSANCmNhc2UgdGhh dCBtYWtlcyB0aGUgJmx0O3NlcXVlbmNlJmd0OyBhIHByb2JsZW0uJm5ic3A7IDwvRk9OVD48L1NQ QU4+PFNQQU4gDQpjbGFzcz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkxMjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBO ZXciIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgc2l6ZT0yPkltYWdpbmUgDQppZiBpdCB3ZXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRv IGNyZWF0ZSBhIGNvbW1hbmQgdGhhdCBsb29rcyBsaWtlIA0KdGhpczo8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwv RElWPg0KPERJViBkaXI9bHRyIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9MDYzNTk0MDE3LTA5MTIy MDA4PjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3IiANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9O VD48L1NQQU4+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIGRpcj1sdHIgYWxpZ249bGVmdD48U1BBTiBjbGFz cz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkxMjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBOZXciIA0KY29sb3I9IzAw MDBmZiBzaXplPTI+Jmx0O3NlY0ROUzp1cGRhdGU8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KeG1sbnM6c2Vj RE5TPSJ1cm46aWV0ZjpwYXJhbXM6eG1sOm5zOnNlY0ROUy0xLjAiPEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyAN CnhzaTpzY2hlbWFMb2NhdGlvbj0idXJuOmlldGY6cGFyYW1zOnhtbDpuczpzZWNETlMtMS4wIA0K c2VjRE5TLTEuMC54c2QiJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgDQombHQ7c2VjRE5TOnJlbSZndDs8 QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0O3NlY0ROUzprZXlUYWcmZ3Q7MTIzNDUm bHQ7L3NlY0ROUzprZXlUYWcmZ3Q7PEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiZsdDsvc2VjRE5TOnJlbSZn dDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpjaGcmZ3Q7PEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiZsdDtzZWNETlM6ZHNEYXRhJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgDQombHQ7c2VjRE5TOmtleVRhZyZndDsxMjM0NSZsdDsvc2VjRE5T OmtleVRhZyZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jmx0O3NlY0ROUzphbGcmZ3Q7MyZsdDsvc2VjRE5TOmFsZyZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpkaWdlc3RUeXBlJmd0OzEmbHQ7L3Nl Y0ROUzpkaWdlc3RUeXBlJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsgDQombHQ7c2VjRE5TOmRpZ2VzdCZndDs0OUZENDZFNkM0QjQ1QzU1RDRBQyZsdDsvc2VjRE5T OmRpZ2VzdCZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0Oy9zZWNETlM6ZHNE YXRhJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgJmx0Oy9zZWNETlM6Y2hnJmd0OzwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+ PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIGRpcj1sdHIgYWxpZ249bGVmdD48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkx MjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBOZXciIA0KY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZiBzaXplPTI+Jmx0 Oy9zZWNETlM6dXBkYXRlJmd0OzwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIGRpcj1sdHIgYWxp Z249bGVmdD48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkxMjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmll ciBOZXciIA0KY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZiBzaXplPTI+PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4N CjxESVYgZGlyPWx0ciBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0PjxTUEFOIGNsYXNzPTA2MzU5NDAxNy0wOTEyMjAwOD48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyIgDQpjb2xvcj0jMDAwMGZmIHNpemU9Mj5JcyB0aGUgc2Vy dmVyIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIHJlbW92ZSBvciBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIGRhdGEgDQphc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdp dGgga2V5VGFnIDEyMzQ1PyZuYnNwOyBXaXRoIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBzY2hlbWEgdGhlcmUncyBu byANCmFtYmlndWl0eS48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPjwhLS0gQ29udmVydGVkIGZyb20gdGV4 dC9wbGFpbiBmb3JtYXQgLS0+DQo8UD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+LVNjb3R0LTwvRk9OVD4gPC9QPg0K PERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj48QlI+DQo8QkxPQ0tRVU9URSANCnN0eWxlPSJQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6 IDVweDsgTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDVweDsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6ICMwMDAwZmYgMnB4IHNvbGlkOyBN QVJHSU4tUklHSFQ6IDBweCI+DQogIDxESVYgY2xhc3M9T3V0bG9va01lc3NhZ2VIZWFkZXIgbGFu Zz1lbi11cyBkaXI9bHRyIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+DQogIDxIUiB0YWJJbmRleD0tMT4NCiAgPEZPTlQg ZmFjZT1UYWhvbWEgc2l6ZT0yPjxCPkZyb206PC9CPiBvd25lci1pZXRmLXByb3ZyZWdAY2FmYXgu c2UgDQogIFttYWlsdG86b3duZXItaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnQGNhZmF4LnNlXSA8Qj5PbiBCZWhhbGYg T2YgPC9CPkphbWVzIA0KICBHb3VsZDxCUj48Qj5TZW50OjwvQj4gVHVlc2RheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIg MDksIDIwMDggMTI6MDQgUE08QlI+PEI+VG86PC9CPiANCiAgaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnQGNhZmF4LnNl PEJSPjxCPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9CPiBbaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnXSBETlNTRUMgRVBQIEV4dGVuc2lvbiAN CiAgKFJGQyA0MzEwKSBVc2FiaWxpdHkgUXVlc3Rpb248QlI+PC9GT05UPjxCUj48L0RJVj4NCiAg PERJVj48L0RJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJDYWxpYnJpLCBWZXJkYW5hLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIEFyaWFs Ij48U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTFwdCI+SW4gcmV2aWV3aW5nIHRoZSBETlNT RUMgRVBQIEV4dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTApIEkgDQogIG5vdGljZWQgb25lIHVzYWJpbGl0eSBp c3N1ZSB0aGF0IEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBnZXQgZmVlZGJhY2sgZnJvbSB0aGUgDQogIGV4aXN0 aW5nIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgZXh0ZW5zaW9uLiAmbmJzcDs8QlI+PEJSPlRoZSBz cGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIA0KICBhbGxvd3MgYWRkaW5nICgmbHQ7c2VjRE5TOmFkZCZndDspLCByZW1v dmluZyAoJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpyZW0mZ3Q7KSwgYW5kIA0KICBjaGFuZ2luZyAoJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpj aGcmZ3Q7KSBEUyBkYXRhLCBidXQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIHRoZXkgDQog IGNhbiYjODIxNzt0IGJlIGRvbmUgYXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGltZS4gJm5ic3A7QmVsb3cgaXMgZnJv bSB0aGUgUkZDIDQyMTAgWE1MIHNjaGVtYSANCiAgZm9yIHRoZSAmbHQ7c2VjRE5TOnVwZGF0ZSZn dDs6PEJSPjxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48Rk9OVCANCiAgZmFjZT0iQ291 cmllciwgQ291cmllciBOZXciPjxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMHB0Ij4mbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7Y29tcGxleFR5cGUgDQogIG5hbWU9InVwZGF0ZVR5cGUi Jmd0OzxCUj48Qj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7Y2hvaWNl Jmd0OzxCUj48L0I+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgDQogIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiLyZn dDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9ImNoZyIgDQogIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiLyZn dDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9InJlbSIgDQogIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpyZW1UeXBlIi8m Z3Q7PEJSPjxCPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZsdDsvY2hvaWNl Jmd0OzxCUj48L0I+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0O2F0dHJp YnV0ZSANCiAgbmFtZT0idXJnZW50IiB0eXBlPSJib29sZWFuIiANCiAgZGVmYXVsdD0iZmFsc2Ui LyZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0Oy9jb21wbGV4VHlwZSZn dDs8QlI+PC9TUEFOPjwvRk9OVD48L0ZPTlQ+PEZPTlQgDQogIGZhY2U9IkNhbGlicmksIFZlcmRh bmEsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgQXJpYWwiPjxTUEFOIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDExcHQiPjxCUj5U byANCiAgYWxsb3cgZm9yIGEgbWl4IG9mIGFkZCwgY2hnLCBhbmQgcmVtLCBzaG91bGQgdGhlIFhN TCBzY2hlbWEgbW9kZWwgaW4gdGhlIA0KICBEb21haW4gTWFwcGluZyAoUkZDIDQ5MzEpIHVwZGF0 ZVR5cGUgWE1MIHNjaGVtYSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIGJlIHVzZWQ/ICZuYnNwO0kgDQogIHVwZGF0ZWQg dGhlIEROU1NFQyBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIGJlbG93IHRvIG1hdGNoIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHRo ZSBEb21haW4gDQogIE1hcHBpbmcsIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhlIG1peCBvZiBhZGQsIGNoZywgYW5k IA0KICByZW06PEJSPjxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48 Rk9OVCANCiAgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciwgQ291cmllciBOZXciPjxTUEFOIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJ WkU6IDEwcHQiPiANCiAgJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0O2NvbXBsZXhUeXBlIA0KICBuYW1l PSJ1cGRhdGVUeXBlIiZndDs8QlI+PEI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O3NlcXVlbmNlJmd0OzxCUj48L0I+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5T OmRzVHlwZSIgPEI+bWluT2NjdXJzPSYjODIyMTswJiM4MjIxOzwvQj4gDQogIC8mZ3Q7PEJSPiZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZsdDtl bGVtZW50IA0KICBuYW1lPSJjaGciIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiIDxCPm1pbk9jY3Vycz0m IzgyMjE7MCYjODIyMTs8L0I+IA0KICAvJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7ZWxlbWVudCANCiAgbmFtZT0icmVtIiB0 eXBlPSJzZWNETlM6cmVtVHlwZSIgPEI+bWluT2NjdXJzPSYjODIyMTswJiM4MjIxOzwvQj4gDQog IC8mZ3Q7PEJSPjxCPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZsdDsvc2Vx dWVuY2UmZ3Q7PEJSPjwvQj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7 YXR0cmlidXRlIA0KICBuYW1lPSJ1cmdlbnQiIHR5cGU9ImJvb2xlYW4iIA0KICBkZWZhdWx0PSJm YWxzZSIvJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7L2NvbXBsZXhU eXBlJmd0OzxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9OVCANCiAgZmFjZT0iQ2FsaWJyaSwg VmVyZGFuYSwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBBcmlhbCI+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEx cHQiPjxCUj5IYXMgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBjb21lIGFjcm9z cyANCiAgdGhpcyBpc3N1ZT8gJm5ic3A7PEJSPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0xPjxG T05UIA0KICBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIEFyaWFsIj48U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0iRk9O VC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPjxCUj4tLSANCiAgPEJSPjxCUj48QlI+SkcgPEJSPjxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9G T05UPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSM4MDAwMDA+PEZPTlQgDQogIGZhY2U9QXJpYWw+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0 eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDcuNXB0Ij4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPEJSPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9O VCANCiAgZmFjZT1BcmlhbD48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jN2YwMDAwPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48U1BBTiAN CiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTBwdCI+PEI+SmFtZXMgRi4gR291bGQ8QlI+PC9CPjwvU1BB Tj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIA0KICBzaXplPTI+PFNQQU4gc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTog MTBwdCI+PEI+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzRjNGM0Yz5QcmluY2lwYWwgU29mdHdhcmUgDQogIEVuZ2lu ZWVyPEJSPjwvRk9OVD48L0I+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzRjNGM0Yz5WZXJpU2lnbiBOYW1pbmcgDQog IFNlcnZpY2VzPEJSPjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMxMTAwZWY+PEZP TlQgc2l6ZT0xPjxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPjxBIA0KICBocmVmPSJq Z291bGRAdmVyaXNpZ24uY29tIj5qZ291bGRAdmVyaXNpZ24uY29tPC9BPjxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9G T05UPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9OVCANCiAgc2l6ZT0xPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSM0YzRjNGM+PFNQQU4gc3R5 bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogNy41cHQiPjxCPkRpcmVjdDo8L0I+IA0KICA3MDMuOTQ4LjMyNzE8QlI+ PEI+TW9iaWxlOjwvQj4gNzAzLjYyOC43MDYzPEJSPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0 eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDcuNXB0Ij48QlI+Jm5ic3A7PEJSPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSM0YzRjNGM+ MjEzNDUgUmlkZ2V0b3AgDQogIENpcmNsZTxCUj5MUzItMi0xPEJSPkR1bGxlcywgVkEgMjAxNjY8 QlI+PC9GT05UPjxCUj48Rk9OVCANCiAgY29sb3I9IzdmMDAwMD48Qj48ST5Ob3RpY2UgdG8gUmVj aXBpZW50OiAmbmJzcDs8L0k+PC9CPjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PEk+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0eWxlPSJG T05ULVNJWkU6IDlwdCI+VGhpcyBlLW1haWwgY29udGFpbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBwcm9wcmll dGFyeSBhbmQvb3IgDQogIFJlZ2lzdHJ5ICZuYnNwO1NlbnNpdGl2ZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRl bmRlZCBzb2xlbHkgZm9yIHRoZSByZWNpcGllbnQgYW5kLCANCiAgdGh1cyBtYXkgbm90IGJlICZu YnNwO3JldHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQsIHJlcHJvZHVjZWQgb3IgZGlzY2xvc2VkIHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIHBy aW9yIA0KICB3cml0dGVuIGNvbnNlbnQgb2YgJm5ic3A7VmVyaVNpZ24gTmFtaW5nIGFuZCBEaXJl Y3RvcnkgU2VydmljZXMuICZuYnNwOzxCPklmIA0KICB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCAmbmJzcDt0 aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBtZXNzYWdlIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgDQog IGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGJ5ICZuYnNwO3RlbGVwaG9uZSBvciByZXBseSBlLW1haWwgYW5kIGRlc3Ry b3kgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIA0KICBtZXNzYWdlIHdpdGhvdXQgbWFraW5nIGEgJm5ic3A7Y29weS48 L0I+ICZuYnNwO1RoYW5rIA0KICB5b3UuPC9TUEFOPjwvST48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIA0K ICBmYWNlPSJDYWxpYnJpLCBWZXJkYW5hLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIEFyaWFsIj48U1BBTiANCnN0eWxl PSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDExcHQiPjxCUj48L0JMT0NLUVVPVEU+PC9TUEFOPjwvRk9OVD48L0JPRFk+ PC9IVE1MPg0K ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 10:48:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BA93A6889 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:48:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mCBAS9RPxDjH for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF8D3A6810 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:48:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9IcKmS011366 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:20 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9IcKwx014588 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:20 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9IcKfU023588 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mB9IcJgg001162 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mB9IcJ1X001161 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] Draft about client side implementation experiences Message-ID: <20081209183819.GE10648@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk (Sorry if you get multiple versions of this announcement, I seem to trigger some mailing-list server rules working against me) Hello, I hope the time for this is right. I would like to give you notice of a draft I've written with my experiences as implementor of EPP client side, and specifically on many extensions done by registries now switching over to EPP. The document is available here for now: http://www.deepcore.org/ietf/draft-mevzek-epp-implementor-experience-00.txt If anyone thinks this work is useful and should be pursued, I will work more on it to polish it, add all references and so on at which time all suggestions would be welcome, including on structure since that would be my first I-D. For now, I'm more expecting general comments, here or in private, if the timeframe as well as the structure and objectives of this document are right or not. Thanks in avance for your possible review and feedback. -- Patrick Mevzek From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 11:23:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FA23A6B57 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XWyh3I8TsTc8 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4D43A6B54 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9J7ZlE019543 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:07:35 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9J7ZMZ029319 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:07:35 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9J7X5X017537 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:07:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9J2VAm001834 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:02:31 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:07:33 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:07:35 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC612@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQABR6+gAACJP9UAAl580A== References: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Gould, James" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 19:07:33.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[63CEE2D0:01C95A31] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It can either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the protocol should prevent. -Scott-=20 =20 ________________________________ From: Gould, James=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:56 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question =09 =09 Scott, =09 I believe that would be up to the server policy to define the mix of updates that are valid. The protocol could support a mix unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't. A similar use case could apply to the domain mapping where an update includes an add and remove of the same status or name server. =09 Jim=20 James F. Gould=20 =09 Pricipal Software Engineer=20 VeriSign Inc. =09 ________________________________ From: Hollenbeck, Scott=20 To: Gould, James; ietf-provreg@cafax.se=20 Sent: Tue Dec 09 12:49:04 2008 Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question=20 =09 =09 Jim, I think I might have just remembered a use case that makes the a problem. Imagine if it were possible to create a command that looks like this: =20 12345 12345 3 1 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC =20 Is the server supposed to remove or change the data associated with keyTag 12345? With the existing schema there's no ambiguity. -Scott-=20 =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James Gould Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question =09 =09 In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of the extension. =20 =09 The specification allows adding (), removing (), and changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can't be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : =09 =09 To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: =09 =09 Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? =20 =09 --=20 =09 =09 JG=20 =09 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =09 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 =09 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability = Question
Ah, but there's a significant difference: = adding and=20 removing the same status or name server produces no change in end = state. =20 The order in which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command=20 significant.  It can either produce an error (remove followed by = change) or=20 a state change (change followed by remove).  That seems like a bad=20 situation that the protocol should prevent.

-Scott-

 

From: Gould, James =
Sent: Tuesday,=20 December 09, 2008 12:56 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott;=20 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC = EPP=20 Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question

Scott,

I believe = that would be up=20 to the server policy to define the mix of updates that are valid. The = protocol=20 could support a mix unless there is some specific reason why it = shouldn't. A=20 similar use case could apply to the domain mapping where an update = includes an=20 add and remove of the same status or name server.

Jim
James = F.=20 Gould

Pricipal Software Engineer
VeriSign Inc.

From: Hollenbeck, Scott =
To: Gould,=20 James; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Sent: = Tue Dec=20 09 12:49:04 2008
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP = Extension=20 (RFC 4310) Usability Question

Jim, I think I might = have just=20 remembered a use case that makes the <sequence> a = problem. =20 Imagine if it were possible to create a = command that=20 looks like this:
 
<secDNS:update
  =20 xmlns:secDNS=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0"
  =20 xsi:schemaLocation=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0=20 secDNS-1.0.xsd">
  =20 <secDNS:rem>
    =20 <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
  =20 </secDNS:rem>
  =20 <secDNS:chg>
    =20 <secDNS:dsData>
      =20 = <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
   &nb= sp;   <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
 &nbs= p;    =20 = <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
   = ;   =20 = <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
 =    =20 </secDNS:dsData>
   = </secDNS:chg>
</secDNS:update>
 
Is the server supposed = to remove or=20 change the data associated with keyTag 12345?  With the existing = schema=20 there's no ambiguity.

-Scott-

 

From: = owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James=20 Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 = PM
To:=20 ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP = Extension=20 (RFC 4310) Usability Question

In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC = 4310) I=20 noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from = the=20 existing implementations of the extension.  

The = specification=20 allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<secDNS:rem>), = and=20 changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XML = schema they=20 can’t be done at the same time.  Below is from the RFC = 4210 XML schema=20 for the <secDNS:update>:

    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <cho= ice>
        <elemen= t=20 name=3D"add"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"chg"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"rem"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:remType"/>
      &l= t;/choice>
      <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

To allow for a mix of add, chg, and = rem, should=20 the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML = schema=20 definition be used?  I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to = match the=20 definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, = and=20 rem:

  =20    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <seq= uence>
        <elem= ent=20 name=3D"add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
      </sequence>
=       <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

Has any of the current implementations = come=20 across this issue?  

--=20


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
= James F. = Gould
Principal=20 Software Engineer
VeriSign = Naming=20 Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct:=20 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 = Ridgetop=20 Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:=20  This = e-mail=20 contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry  Sensitive=20 information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be=20  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior = written=20 consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If = you=20 have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify the = sender=20 immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the = original=20 message without making a  copy.  Thank=20 you.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 13:31:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2EF28C18A for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z235vwKJLANh for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DC628C103 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9LK8ta018509 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:08 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9LK82r012521 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:08 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9LK73O010461 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839D866; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:07 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id 0LYbSF0nKxPN; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:05 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6396A65; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:05 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (klaus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mB9LK432004695; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:04 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <493EE0FC.5080409@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:19:56 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081204 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" CC: "Gould, James" , ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC612@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC612@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 2008-12-09 20:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same > status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in > which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It can > either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change > (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the > protocol should prevent. > > -Scott- > Hi Scott, being nitpicky, adding and removing the same status value in one request is actually undefined, since the status value not only consists of its name, but of a human readable text also. So if there is a status put on hold because of name infringement and I submit an update request containing put on hold because of excessive spamming what shall the result be? It is undefined to which of the two (the existing or added status value) the removal applies to and which shall survive. For that reason, our EPP implementation generally disallows the addition and deletion of the very same name server/status/IP address or whatever in one request. The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same way, i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within one request, otherwise the request would fail. Although I don't think there is a need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible. I just want to remind of the issue in RFC 3731, where the requirement of the domain:update request to have at least one , or element caused either headaches or protocol bending in the context of EPP extensions (fortunately, this was later fixed in RFC 4931). Regards, Klaus From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 15:33:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17723A6B4B for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:33:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KTLH-Vo05Huc for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:33:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A493A6B24 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9NHpUV011233 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:51 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9NHpIs013196 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:51 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9NHofP015248 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:51 +0100 (MET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,743,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="28160687" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2008 23:17:50 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9NHohQ017672; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:50 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB9NHodu012338; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:17:50 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:50 +0100 Received: from host-78-64-7-95.homerun.telia.com ([10.61.80.201]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:49 +0100 Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Message-Id: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: "Gould, James" In-Reply-To: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:48 +0100 References: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 23:17:49.0680 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A608F00:01C95A54] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4447; t=1228864670; x=1229728670; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20

|Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-provreg]=20DNSSEC=20EPP=20Extensi on=20(RFC=204310)=20Usability=20Question |Sender:=20; bh=A/wjdf1OzQ1EBEKBsTKY2GH7LD9o1CXtFBkWPM8q/Pc=; b=SsQj1U+u/y4zIy0JjE9qux1sNLHOjHKQUF55yV5T2Oy7//J+JuEpbSkccv nKdHr+G/mdzfwWIO7ZkgvXmrq5frH3Hm72MasKh5bu9EUSxBAuMxHlvOnyjX LMQX8czxL9; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mB9NHpfP015205 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 9 dec 2008, at 18.56, Gould, James wrote: > Scott, > > I believe that would be up to the server policy to define the mix of > updates that are valid. The protocol could support a mix unless > there is some specific reason why it shouldn't. A similar use case > could apply to the domain mapping where an update includes an add > and remove of the same status or name server. > In Sweden I have either done just add and remove. Never mixed. That seems to me be a possible source for confusion. Patrik > > > Jim > James F. Gould > > Pricipal Software Engineer > VeriSign Inc. > > > From: Hollenbeck, Scott > To: Gould, James; ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Sent: Tue Dec 09 12:49:04 2008 > Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) > Usability Question > > Jim, I think I might have just remembered a use case that makes the > a problem. Imagine if it were possible to create a > command that looks like this: > > xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0" > xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0 > secDNS-1.0.xsd"> > > 12345 > > > > 12345 > 3 > 1 > 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC > > > > > Is the server supposed to remove or change the data associated with > keyTag 12345? With the existing schema there's no ambiguity. > -Scott- > > > > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf- > provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James Gould > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 PM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability > Question > > In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one > usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing > implementations of the extension. > > The specification allows adding (), removing > (), and changing () DS data, but according > to the XML schema they can’t be done at the same time. Below is > from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : > > > > > > > > > > > To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model > in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be > used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition > of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: > > > > > > > > > > > Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? > > -- > > > JG > > ------------------------------------------------------- > James F. Gould > Principal Software Engineer > VeriSign Naming Services > jgould@verisign.com > Direct: 703.948.3271 > Mobile: 703.628.7063 > > > 21345 Ridgetop Circle > LS2-2-1 > Dulles, VA 20166 > > Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary > and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the > recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or > disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and > Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in > error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e- > mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank > you. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 16:55:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328493A6914 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:55:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qxf11MC8yTK1 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:54:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC903A6806 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA0iSDh023106 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:28 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBA0iS2a028487 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:28 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA0iRoS009330 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBA0iQhj032541; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:26 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBA0iPqH032540; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:25 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:25 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Draft about client side implementation experiences Message-ID: <20081210004425.GF10648@home.patoche.org> References: <20081209183819.GE10648@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20081209183819.GE10648@home.patoche.org> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:26 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrick Mevzek 2008-12-09 19:46 > I would like to give you notice of a draft I've written with my > experiences as implementor of EPP client side, and specifically on > many extensions done by registries now switching over to EPP. > > The document is available here for now: > http://www.deepcore.org/ietf/draft-mevzek-epp-implementor-experience-00.txt I forgot to mention that the presentation I've done in ICANN Caïro ccNSO technical day meeting may be useful, at least the first part dealing with EPP, its deployment, and various local registry extensions. You can see an outline of it at http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cairo-ccnso-techday-200811.pdf Presentation itself at http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cairo-ccnso-techday-200811.html (needs Javascript, as it is done with S5) -- Patrick Mevzek From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 9 17:32:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459CE3A6B05 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:32:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5dR+MFf7JFEP for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:32:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B2D3A67A8 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA1GgWi002313 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:42 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBA1Ggsr009785 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:42 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA1GgPX011773 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBA1GfQw009867; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBA1GfGl009866; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk James Gould 2008-12-09 18:29 > In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability > issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of > the extension. > > The specification allows adding (), removing (), and > changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can¹t > be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the > : As others have said I think the whole "issue" is the same for all update operations on various objects, not only DNSkey materials. I think that by allowing more flexibility with all operations possible at the same time, it only create confusion with no big benefit at the end. Specifically, I think the most frequent use case for DNS material would be to add *OR* remove a key, and not at the same time if we are after smooth transitions. Change of a key detail may be useful but should not happen too often in practice. So having only either one add or one chg or one rem block in a domain:update for DNSkey material seem fine to me, and I would not be in favor of mixing. I also observe (without hard numbers) that use cases depend on object types. I would say that for status values it seems more logical to have mainly add and rem operations (and again probably very few with add and rem together in a single call), where for nameservers the chg operation may be more frequent (even if not possible by core EPP RFCs, it is done by some registries). As for contact, I would say that it derives a lot from the fact that very few registries seem to allow really multiple contacts of the same type, and if they do I think very few registrars use that feature. Hence in that case add or rem operations are probably the more logical one for contacts during domain update. For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher API. I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow *only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all 3 ... which create even more confusion. -- Patrick Mevzek From kjetil.skulstad@aakrabil.no Tue Dec 9 22:56:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BD93A696C for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:56:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.032 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dteKIwGxJt2s for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-96-250-117-82.nycmny.east.verizon.net (pool-96-250-117-82.nycmny.east.verizon.net [96.250.117.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A38FB3A6840 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:56:11 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081210065611.A38FB3A6840@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:56:11 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Wed Dec 10 00:57:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3320A3A6911 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:57:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SCKKfXOrXhCt for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:57:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3003A68F3 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA8jhDq003476 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBA8jhXS020710 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA8jhKx028863 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F244D52; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:42 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id XQJGmh9dbV-z; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:39 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA6566; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:17 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBA8hGpF020157; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:16 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <493F8124.9010908@knipp.de> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:16 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081208 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick Mevzek CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> In-Reply-To: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12/10/2008 02:16 AM, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry > side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about > what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info > (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will > be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in > other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes > last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they > just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the > following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this > can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher > API. > > I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow > *only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all > 3 ... which create even more confusion. > Just my two cents: I personally want to have as few calls as possible, so I like being able to do additions and removals at the same time. Generally speaking, the design question is whether the "add/remove" approach is the preferable solution, or whether it is better to choose a "replace all" approach, especially, as the number of items (status values, contact reference, IP addresses etc.) are rather small. So a client side application would either determine the desired state from its own storage and submit it to the registry or would query the current state from the registry, alter the state at its own discretion and submit it as a whole to the registry. Our experience with such an approach in other protocols is rather good, although we discovered the need to select which part of the data shall be updated. If one only wants to change the name servers of a domain but not the contacts, it could be regarded as a burden if the submission of the contact data would be also required. Regards, Klaus From mlc@almaden.ibm.com Wed Dec 10 07:59:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCDC3A6BC8 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:59:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -19.067 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dsv16igS2hND for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from 20158034009.user.veloxzone.com.br (20158034009.user.veloxzone.com.br [201.58.34.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 560333A6BB9 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:59:15 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081210155916.560333A6BB9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:59:15 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From nhouse@acecosemicon.com Wed Dec 10 22:15:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659633A68B2 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:15:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.017 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-10.265, BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.124, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08=1.787, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w36EXem9KpsY for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from aicins.com (unknown [122.169.135.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E5553A6859 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:15:56 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081211061557.2E5553A6859@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Visit site now!

Really seductive prices are waiting inside!



Miller: Ive read portions of it.Of what value is George Soross theory of reflexivity? This question
 From kazitlbsk@amsec.com Thu Dec 11 05:17:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26E03A67F4 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:17:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, SARE_RECV_IP_200150=0.612, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzffXEn5IAuP for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcs200150058156.res-com.wayinternet.com.br (pcs200150058156.res-com.wayinternet.com.br [200.150.58.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D2E63A6A4D for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:16:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081211131652.7D2E63A6A4D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:16:51 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From claudio.beardo@italsoft-mi.it Thu Dec 11 06:08:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DCC28C1B2; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:08:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.11 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4dw7yjwYdem; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:08:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from athedsl-4381972.home.otenet.gr (athedsl-4381972.home.otenet.gr [79.130.77.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 53B8C28C187; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:08:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:08:27 -0500 From: "Samuel Wolf" Subject: Emporio Armani better than original To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Samuel Christmas is the time to get Tag Heuer watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.zihiksup.com/ Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.zihiksup.com/ Sincerely, Mr Wolf From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 11 06:37:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803A13A6A91 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGuPerowqhJs for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF8E3A6784 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBEPLxW021792 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:21 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBBEPLhG018150 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:21 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBEPJmX020466 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBBEKonA029514; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:20:51 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:25:18 -0500 Received: from 10.131.29.236 ([10.131.29.236]) by dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:25:17 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:25:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question From: James Gould To: Klaus Malorny , "Hollenbeck, Scott" CC: EPP Provreg Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaQ+wcpoffmQ7CTi2wzHl9F3F5twBWFmjD In-Reply-To: <493EE0FC.5080409@knipp.de> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3311832314_9790664" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2008 14:25:18.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AF70BE0:01C95B9C] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3311832314_9790664 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Klaus, Your two statements =B3The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same way, i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within one request, otherwise the request would fail=B2 and =B3Although I don't think ther= e is a need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible=B2 are sort of conflicting. =20 RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and chg in a single command. The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema validation enabled, which in our case we do. Do you see a need to change the XML schema? =20 --=20 JG=20 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior writte= n consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Klaus Malorny Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:19:56 -0500 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Cc: James Gould , EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question On 2008-12-09 20:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same > status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in > which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It can > either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change > (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the > protocol should prevent. > > -Scott- > Hi Scott, being nitpicky, adding and removing the same status value in one request is actually undefined, since the status value not only consists of its name, but of a human readable text also. So if there is a status put on hold because of name infringement and I submit an update request containing put on hold because of excessive spamming what shall the result be? It is undefined to which of the two (the existing or added status value) the removal applies to and which shall survive. For that reason, our EPP implementation generally disallows the addition an= d deletion of the very same name server/status/IP address or whatever in one request. The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same way, i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within one request, otherwise the request would fail. Although I don't think there is = a need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible. I just want t= o remind of the issue in RFC 3731, where the requirement of the domain:update request to have at least one , or element caused either headaches or protocol bending in the context of EPP extensions (fortunately= , this was later fixed in RFC 4931). Regards, Klaus --B_3311832314_9790664 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Questio= n Klaus,

Your two statements “The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle= this in the same way,
i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within = one
request, otherwise the request would fail” and “Although I don'= t think there is a
need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs<= BR> should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible” are sor= t of conflicting.  

RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and chg= in a single command.  The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow = a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema vali= dation enabled, which in our case we do.  Do you see a need to change t= he XML schema?          

--


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, propriet= ary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the reci= pient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed with= out the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Service= s.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please = notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy= the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.


From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:19:56 -0500
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: James Gould <jgould@verisign.co= m>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafa= x.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usabilit= y Question

On 2008-12-09 20:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same=
> status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in > which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It c= an
> either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change<= BR> > (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the<= BR> > protocol should prevent.
>
> -Scott-
>


Hi Scott,

being nitpicky, adding and removing the same status value in one request is=
actually undefined, since the status value not only consists of its name, b= ut of
a human readable text also. So if there is a status

   <status s=3D"serverHold">put on hold becaus= e of name infringement</status>

and I submit an update request containing

   <add>
     <status s=3D"serverHold">put on= hold because of excessive spamming</status>
   <add>
   <rem>
     <status s=3D"serverHold"/>
   </rem>

what shall the result be? It is undefined to which of the two (the existing= or
added status value) the removal applies to and which shall survive.

For that reason, our EPP implementation generally disallows the addition an= d
deletion of the very same name server/status/IP address or whatever in one<= BR> request. The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same = way,
i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within = one
request, otherwise the request would fail. Although I don't think there is = a
need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs<= BR> should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible. I just want t= o
remind of the issue in RFC 3731, where the requirement of the domain:update=
request to have at least one <add>, <rem> or <chg> elemen= t caused either
headaches or protocol bending in the context of EPP extensions (fortunately= ,
this was later fixed in RFC 4931).

Regards,

Klaus



 --B_3311832314_9790664-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 11 07:13:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCD83A6A91 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:13:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.215 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.546, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MqdqynUqR38U for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBF228C0D8 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBF0A8K024849 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBBF0Acm023191 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBF08Aa008622 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBBEt2Pm021062; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:55:02 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:00:07 -0500 Received: from 10.131.29.236 ([10.131.29.236]) by dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:00:07 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:59:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question From: James Gould To: Patrick Mevzek , EPP Provreg Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaaL5v9kA3UreLQhWXXa+gzwTKvwBOFy1R In-Reply-To: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3311834390_9942303" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2008 15:00:07.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[28353E10:01C95BA1] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3311834390_9942303 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Patrick, I disagree with your following paragraph: For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher API. It boils down to a transactional consistency issue. An individual EPP command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single database transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either manages the DS data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the Registrant to update the D= S data, having to manage the updates in separate commands and subsequently separate transactions is more complex and will cause transactional inconsistency. The only way to keep transactional consistency with the desire of a Registrant that uses a Registrar=B9s UI to manage DS data is to have the UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a combination. I personally have never seen a UI that manages a list in this manor.=20 There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed domain is transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer along with it or does it get cleared. I=B9m assuming that it would be transferred along in a similar model as the name servers. It is up to the gaining Registrar to update the name servers and DS data assuming that the hosting is changing along with the transfer. In this case, the gaining Registrar would have a need to remove the existing name servers, add the new name servers, and do the same with the DS data. Having this done in separate commands / transactions would result in DNS getting incremental changes based on the add and remove order chosen by the Registrar. It is much cleaner to simply be able to remove and add in a single command and single transaction, which will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. I don=B9t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes is overly complicated. The RFC could include text that describes some of the basic rules to ensure there is consistency. That assumes that all Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your =B3EPP : An implementor experience and recommendations=B2 is doesn=B9t look like that is the case. In either event, changing the choice to a sequence is backward compatible, so it should not break current client implementations. The protocol should address the most common use cases and ensure transactional consistency. --=20 JG=20 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior writte= n consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Patrick Mevzek Organization: Dot And Co Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:16:41 -0500 To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question James Gould 2008-12-09 18:29 > In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability > issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations= of > the extension.=20 > > The specification allows adding (), removing (), = and > changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can= =B9t > be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the > : As others have said I think the whole "issue" is the same for all update operations on various objects, not only DNSkey materials. I think that by allowing more flexibility with all operations possible at the same time, it only create confusion with no big benefit at the end. Specifically, I think the most frequent use case for DNS material would be to add *OR* remove a key, and not at the same time if we are after smooth transitions. Change of a key detail may be useful but should not happen too often in practice. So having only either one add or one chg or one rem block in a domain:update for DNSkey material seem fine to me, and I would not be in favor of mixing. I also observe (without hard numbers) that use cases depend on object types. I would say that for status values it seems more logical to have mainly add and rem operations (and again probably very few with add and rem together in a single call), where for nameservers the chg operation may be more frequent (even if not possible by core EPP RFCs, it is done by some registries). As for contact, I would say that it derives a lot from the fact that very few registries seem to allow really multiple contacts of the same type, and if they do I think very few registrars use that feature. Hence in that case add or rem operations are probably the more logical one for contacts during domain update. For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher API. I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow *only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all 3 ... which create even more confusion. -- Patrick Mevzek --B_3311834390_9942303 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Questio= n Patrick,

I disagree with your following paragraph:

For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry
side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about
what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info
(otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will
be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in
other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes
last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they
just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the
following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this
can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher
API.

It boils down to a transactional consistency issue.  An individual EPP= command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single database = transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either manages the DS = data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the Registrant to update the DS= data, having to manage the updates in separate commands and subsequently se= parate transactions is more complex and will cause transactional inconsisten= cy.  The only way to keep transactional consistency with the desire of = a Registrant that uses a Registrar’s UI to manage DS data is to have t= he UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a combination. &n= bsp;I personally have never seen a UI that manages a list in this manor.
There is also the issue of transfers.  What happens when a signed doma= in is transferred to another Registrar?  Does the DS data transfer alon= g with it or does it get cleared.  I’m assuming that it would be = transferred along in a similar model as the name servers.  It is up to = the gaining Registrar to update the name servers and DS data assuming that t= he hosting is changing along with the transfer.  In this case, the gain= ing Registrar would have a need to remove the existing name servers, add the= new name servers, and do the same with the DS data.  Having this done = in separate commands / transactions would result in DNS getting incremental = changes based on the add and remove order chosen by the Registrar.  It = is much cleaner to simply be able to remove and add in a single command and = single transaction, which will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. &= nbsp;

I don’t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes= is overly complicated.  The RFC could include text that describes some= of the basic rules to ensure there is consistency.  That assumes that = all Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your “EPP : An imp= lementor experience and recommendations” is doesn’t look like th= at is the case.   In either event, changing the choice to a sequen= ce is backward compatible, so it should not break current client implementat= ions.  The protocol should address the most common use cases and ensure= transactional consistency.   

--


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, propriet= ary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the reci= pient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed with= out the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Service= s.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please = notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy= the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.


From: Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>
Organization: Dot And Co
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:16:41 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@caf= ax.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usabilit= y Question

James Gould <jgould@verisign.com> 2= 008-12-09 18:29
> In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usabili= ty
> issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementati= ons of
> the extension.
>
> The specification allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<se= cDNS:rem>), and
> changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XML schema= they can’t
> be done at the same time.  Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema = for the
> <secDNS:update>:

As others have said I think the whole "issue" is the same for all=
update operations on various objects, not only DNSkey materials.

I think that by allowing more flexibility with all operations
possible at the same time, it only create confusion with no big
benefit at the end.

Specifically, I think the most frequent use case for DNS material
would be to add *OR* remove a key, and not at the same time if we are
after smooth transitions.
Change of a key detail may be useful but should not happen too often
in practice.

So having only either one add or one chg or one rem block in a
domain:update for DNSkey material seem fine to me, and I would not be
in favor of mixing.

I also observe (without hard numbers) that use cases depend on object
types.
I would say that for status values it seems more logical to have
mainly add and rem operations (and again probably very few with add
and rem together in a single call), where for nameservers the chg
operation may be more frequent (even if not possible by core EPP
RFCs, it is done by some registries).
As for contact, I would say that it derives a lot from the fact that
very few registries seem to allow really multiple contacts of the
same type, and if they do I think very few registrars use that
feature. Hence in that case add or rem operations are probably the
more logical one for contacts during domain update.

For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry
side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about
what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info
(otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will
be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in
other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes
last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they
just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the
following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this
can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher
API.

I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow
*only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all
3 ... which create even more confusion.

--
Patrick Mevzek

 --B_3311834390_9942303-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Fri Dec 12 01:15:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509293A6AF6 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:15:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLp7u1fqnpsq for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184D63A695C for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC90AX6007578 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBC90AAC021993 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC90Anl010252 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5BB82; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:09 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id KZD8LKJVKu+n; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:07 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8952580; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:07 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBC906VU023247; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:07 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <49422816.6020002@knipp.de> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:06 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081210 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Gould CC: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBC90Anl017892 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12/11/2008 03:25 PM, James Gould wrote: > Klaus, > > Your two statements “The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle > this in the same way, > i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections > within one > request, otherwise the request would fail” and “Although I don't think > there is a > need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs > should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible” are sort > of conflicting. > > RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and > chg in a single command. The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow > a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema > validation enabled, which in our case we do. Do you see a need to change > the XML schema? > > -- > Hi James, as I am in favour of not increasing the protocol entropy without a real need(*), I would not update RFC 4310 just for this reason. This is not a limitation one cannot live with. If there would be a major overhaul of this RFC, one could consider to change the to a though, as this is backward compatible. Regards, Klaus * We still struggle with various pre-EPP-1.0 and other strange EPP (-like) implementations. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Fri Dec 12 01:35:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382BB3A695C for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:35:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xVw9QtP+onxB for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318E53A6937 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9NTeR010423 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:29 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBC9NTvk019110 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:29 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9NSDr026925 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AC24E; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:28 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id xhViE0H+y8tV; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:26 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8055935; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:26 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBC9NP1g025809; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:25 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:25 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081210 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Gould CC: Patrick Mevzek , EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBC9NTDr009039 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12/11/2008 03:59 PM, James Gould wrote: > [...] > > There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed domain > is transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer along > with it or does it get cleared. I’m assuming that it would be > transferred along in a similar model as the name servers. It is up to > the gaining Registrar to update the name servers and DS data assuming > that the hosting is changing along with the transfer. > [...] The DS data is not a separate object, but part of the domain object, so there is no question that it shall be transferred along with the domain itself. Also it is doubtless that the data MAY NOT be cleared. But this brings me to another question which I have already discussed with various people, but with no real satisfying answer yet. Maybe this list is not the right place for this question neither, but does the management of the DS data via the whole reseller-registrar chain suffice the security needs of the DNSSEC infrastructure? As the name server operator is not necessarily even in this chain, there could be weak links, attack vectors that could void the security gained by the DNSSEC protocol itself. Shouldn't the name server operator get a separate out-of-the-band channel to the registry operator to submit the DS data directly, for example with a subset of RFC 4931/RFC 4310? Any comments on this? Regards, Klaus From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Fri Dec 12 02:15:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC173A684D for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:15:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4P1LXRVF5FQY for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D10E3A682D for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9qvOw001606 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:57 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBC9qvK2025868 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:57 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9qu9o014382 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:56 +0100 (MET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,210,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="28434267" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2008 09:52:56 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9quuo001270; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:56 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBC9quYO020044; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:52:56 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:55 +0100 Received: from [192.165.72.13] ([10.61.82.101]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:44 +0100 Cc: James Gould , Patrick Mevzek , EPP Provreg Message-Id: <4022C8B5-9749-458E-A774-49A5BFA0EBC6@cisco.com> From: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Klaus Malorny In-Reply-To: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:44 +0100 References: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2008 09:52:44.0842 (UTC) FILETIME=[61B078A0:01C95C3F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=757; t=1229075576; x=1229939576; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-provreg]=20DNSSEC=20EPP=20Extensi on=20(RFC=204310)=20Usability=20Question |Sender:=20; bh=RZUEml3aDtYcBwaAKF3hPSlsxdnAR2t3Fa55JIozpZg=; b=sPYBVXe4dlaWDuMePaenv+M7rbMPXjsIQABywsw2cBVzQkvshBxErtsAaN hYcHJD0tZFyXjdv0cIqWPY6NCelxL8X2iwVHVoSX7t7Giz0/ulaoU0nNnKcV cnn5kCxSBQ; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12 dec 2008, at 10.23, Klaus Malorny wrote: > Shouldn't the name server operator get a separate out-of-the-band > channel to the registry operator to submit the DS data directly, for > example with a subset of RFC 4931/RFC 4310? Any comments on this? My immediate reaction is "no". There is the same attack vector as changes in NS records or glue. I think the DS data should definitely follow the same path as other domain related data. That said, the registry can easily do some checks and balances calculation when the data arrive -- before the zone is published. Just like they can check glue, that servers are auth etc, they can also check the KSK in the child zone that it matches the DS passed to them. Patrik From aaron@brandttractor.com Fri Dec 12 02:30:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57893A6915; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:30:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZaH+sZGGVlwx; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:30:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-13-153-43.dial-up.telesp.net.br (201-13-153-43.dial-up.telesp.net.br [201.13.153.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AE03D3A684D; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:30:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:29:21 -0500 From: "Blair Park" Subject: Christmas Cartier watches bargain To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Blair If you've waited to get your Jaeger LeCoultre watch, this is the right time to go for it. http://www.nowtill.com/ Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.nowtill.com/ Sincerely, Mr Park From nedra_cort@adp.com Fri Dec 12 12:54:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0ACC28C0EF for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:54:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.124, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08=1.787, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mQf6UCOx8lw5 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from 54.228.205-77.rev.gaoland.net (54.228.205-77.rev.gaoland.net [77.205.228.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1ED2928C113 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:54:14 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081212205415.1ED2928C113@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Go to site!

Biggest sale ever



their nuclear program until the United States releasesdinosaur may have been forced to dig in an effort to
 From mariajose@allen.com.br Sun Dec 14 11:41:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A333A68F0 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:41:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.795 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP=2.177, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k4+-VkJNPVZr for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:41:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from 81.Red-83-50-236.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net (81.Red-83-50-236.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.50.236.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D6F883A6805 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:41:23 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081214194124.D6F883A6805@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:41:23 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From krock-mac@ai.tnc.ne.jp Sun Dec 14 16:42:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156423A694D for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:42:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -42.818 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-42.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Wpn+H+nqZZQ for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from alltel.net (unknown [200.218.248.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 37D413A6947 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:42:52 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081215004253.37D413A6947@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:42:52 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From mida@accsoft.com.au Mon Dec 15 01:16:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0263A69D5 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:16:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -39.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-39.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UwLDFl2DecoB for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:16:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from aglaze.com (unknown [85.100.44.157]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E64583A69C9 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:16:16 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081215091616.E64583A69C9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:16:16 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From magdalena.ciepiela@akzonobel.com Mon Dec 15 07:52:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CC33A68BF for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:52:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -32.193 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-32.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqkRTc7EQka7 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:52:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from host206-38-dynamic.7-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host206-38-dynamic.7-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [79.7.38.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B9C63A6886 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:52:15 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081215155216.0B9C63A6886@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:52:15 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From llobera-sastre@allianz.es Mon Dec 15 10:06:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881AF28C118 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:06:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN=1.495, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7aAR-RyJxlv for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-74-76-183-220.nycap.res.rr.com (cpe-74-76-183-220.nycap.res.rr.com [74.76.183.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A6F828C12F for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:06:15 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: , December 82% off From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081215180616.1A6F828C12F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:06:15 -0800 (PST) Click here to view as a webpage From mongoliasouphanouvong@ace-north.org.uk Mon Dec 15 17:42:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD0E3A68C8 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:42:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -27.878 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-27.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP=2.177, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IyDkzIJNJwWQ for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from alphasan.com (unknown [88.248.172.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F0FEF3A6851 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:42:35 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081216014235.F0FEF3A6851@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:42:35 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From ocp@afpc.net.sy Tue Dec 16 08:50:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015BE3A6979 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:50:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -24.877 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-24.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLAzXG1M0wgj for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from bnx65.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (bow194.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.29.38.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DD223A6886 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:50:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081216165053.4DD223A6886@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:50:51 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From jpr@altitude.com Wed Dec 17 10:36:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C24C3A6B2A for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:36:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.183 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MANGLED_OFF=2.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c1y+kmipFPAb for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-041-214-204.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br (189-041-239-160.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br [189.41.239.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E5733A6B12 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:36:07 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Dear provreg-archive, Dec 87% 0FF From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081217183608.4E5733A6B12@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Go to site!
From kwni@akingump.com Wed Dec 17 16:58:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8193A6B5D for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:58:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrYwDeJLLFGL for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:58:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-76-168-165-78.socal.res.rr.com (cpe-76-168-165-78.socal.res.rr.com [76.168.165.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 65E853A66B4 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:58:24 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Your inquiry From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081218005825.65E853A66B4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Go to site!
From overdrawspluperfect@absalom.co.uk Wed Dec 17 18:53:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5273A68D7 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:53:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.358 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JiVHrmcfmpJO for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:53:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from aatoken.aitea.net (unknown [190.166.150.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 012433A6947 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:53:39 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081218025341.012433A6947@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:53:39 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From on@alfredmcalpineplc.com Wed Dec 17 23:20:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CF03A6AC5 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:20:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -29.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-29.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id se35NoGHk-7f for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:20:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from adecoconsultores.com (unknown [124.188.171.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 607943A68D0 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:19:58 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your inquiry From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081218071959.607943A68D0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:19:58 -0800 (PST)
Go to site!
From ch@jdmonline.com Thu Dec 18 00:43:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61C53A6957; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:43:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.038 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xrn5UpxOmswh; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:43:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from s182pc111.mmj.pl (s182pc111.mmj.pl [85.219.182.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CCFA63A69B0; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:43:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:43:12 -0500 From: "Blanca Adair" Subject: Vacheron Constantin watch for a christmas gift To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Blanca Looking for a Jaeger LeCoultre watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.watchlast.com/ Take advantage of our christmas specials and get yourself Jaeger LeCoultre watch that you've always wanted! http://www.watchlast.com/ Sincerely, Mr Adair No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.100.047). http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ From cfink@amgoil.com Thu Dec 18 01:22:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBFD3A68C0; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:22:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.618 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJRL2XOrKcuN; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-43-165-95.dsl.telesp.net.br (201-43-165-95.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.43.165.95]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CF543A67C0; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:22:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:21:57 -0500 From: "Manuela Cotton" Subject: Take a look at the Omega watches To: pmol@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Manuela Christmas is the time to get Franck Muller watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.watchrest.com/ We are offering wholesaler prices on all watches during the month of December. http://www.watchrest.com/ Sincerely, Mr Cotton From kirsty.jephcott@alexandra.co.uk Thu Dec 18 03:52:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250853A67B4 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:52:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.034 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkqPQO3LSGV2 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:52:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from a181-229.adsl.paltel.net (a181-229.adsl.paltel.net [213.6.181.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ADE753A6767 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:52:02 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 081217-0, 17/12/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Message-Id: <20081218115203.ADE753A6767@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:52:02 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 18 05:40:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F48D3A68D4 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:40:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.726 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.726 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.476, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EsGRwrvE5yNl for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521133A69BC for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIDTOe7010561 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:29:24 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIDTOhS012416 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:29:24 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIDTNkE014302 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:29:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBIDNxE7005804; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:24:02 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:19 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:29:13 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Thread-Index: AclfOtlcElWE6u1CR+mi3pKU1EQFYgB2Bb4Q References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07026523E3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2008 13:29:19.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[A15481C0:01C96114] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBIDTOkE007871 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:58 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org > Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs > > Apologies for taking far too long to review this in detail. > > I've had several discussions about where to set the bar for > advancement to full standard status. RFC 2026 does have this > statement: > > A specification for which significant implementation and > successful operational > experience has been obtained may be elevated to the > Internet Standard level. An > Internet Standard (which may simply be referred to as a > Standard) is characterized > by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally > held belief that the > specified protocol or service provides significant benefit > to the Internet community. > > I believe the implementation report fully covers the first > sentence. I would want an answer for the second sentence > before going forward with this > -- certainly domain registration is a significant benefit to > the Internet community, so to answer this question, I'd like > a rough idea about how often this protocol is used in > production between vendors for domain registration. Do you > have any information on that? Depends on what you mean by "how often". It's used for several million transactions per day between VeriSign and registrars managing .com and .net domains. I don't have direct access to production stats for other registry operators, so I'd like to ask others to speak up here as appropriate. If you're asking about overall adoption, I know that it's used by all of the gTLD operators (it's an ICANN requirement) and many ccTLD operators. Patrick Mevzek recently reported on recent deployments here: http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cair o-ccnso-techday-200811.html Sorry if the URL gets broken across two lines. > Beyond that, I think the bar should be set very high before > permitting _changes_ during the advancement from draft to > full standard. After talking with other parties, I suspect > that while my concerns about TLS would improve the quality of > the specification, they are not something I feel the IESG > should force an author/WG change during this advancement > (it's something I would strongly favor for republication at > proposed or draft, however). > > I don't feel any of the normative references are > inappropriate for an RFC > 3967 downward reference. > > 1. Move RFC 4930-4934 to full standard without change. I am > willing to attempt this, although it's less likely to pass > IETF last call than the other options due to the obsolescence > of some of the normative references. > > 2. Republish with only references updated. This will require > somewhat less use of the RFC 3967 procedures and make improve > the odds of a successful last call. > > 3. Republish with references updated and operational > clarifications; primarily documenting the TLS practices that > have been used in practice to interoperate. I recognize > there is some risk that the new TLS practices text will not > be correct, which is why I've decided I'm willing to let this > issue pass for a draft->full advancement. IMHO, the problem > should have been noticed and fixed when advancing to draft so > any errata could be applied when advancing to full. We > missed the window where it was most appropriate to fix that > sort of problem, so we shouldn't hold advancement hostage > over the issue, IMHO. I can't promise my the rest of the > IESG will agree, but that's my opinion. > > So the steps to advance are: > > A. Provide data for the "significant benefit to the Internet" > litmus test. > I'll need to > defend this before the IESG. > B. Choose option 1-3, publish revised I-Ds as appropriate C. > It would be very helpful to provide candidate RFC 3967 text > for the last call notice. > > and I'll take it forward from there. I'm open to either option 2 or 3. What do others think? -Scott- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 18 07:27:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A9F3A6A78 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:27:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.811, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bN6uVWv2mnqH for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:27:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC343A67D2 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:27:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIFGKPU003720 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:20 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIFGKg3003320 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:20 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIFGIaX000140 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (ns.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBIFGF9n085772; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:16:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07026523E3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:09:09 -0500 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" From: Edward Lewis Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Cc: , , , , jaap@nlnetlabs.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 10.20.30.4 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I admire your patience over advancing this. NeuStar has been using EPP for a long time, in a lot of ways, and reliably for our domain name registry business. We have even already implemented the DNSSEC extensions and whatever extensions have been needed for our business model. When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it. I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I have come across use it. Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports measuring this. Other tasks take precedence. Regarding the options - I've never run into any issue with the original spec, I doubt that we have updated anything for quite a while. (We did add DNSSEC extensions and some others, but nothing touching the base.) So I don't have a real opinion on the needed changes. (As in I don't think/know of anything [is] needed.) At 8:29 -0500 12/18/08, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM] >> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:58 PM >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org >> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs >> >> Apologies for taking far too long to review this in detail. >> >> I've had several discussions about where to set the bar for >> advancement to full standard status. RFC 2026 does have this >> statement: >> >> A specification for which significant implementation and >> successful operational >> experience has been obtained may be elevated to the >> Internet Standard level. An >> Internet Standard (which may simply be referred to as a >> Standard) is characterized >> by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally >> held belief that the >> specified protocol or service provides significant benefit >> to the Internet community. >> >> I believe the implementation report fully covers the first >> sentence. I would want an answer for the second sentence >> before going forward with this >> -- certainly domain registration is a significant benefit to >> the Internet community, so to answer this question, I'd like >> a rough idea about how often this protocol is used in >> production between vendors for domain registration. Do you >> have any information on that? > >Depends on what you mean by "how often". It's used for several million >transactions per day between VeriSign and registrars managing .com and >.net domains. I don't have direct access to production stats for other >registry operators, so I'd like to ask others to speak up here as >appropriate. > >If you're asking about overall adoption, I know that it's used by all of >the gTLD operators (it's an ICANN requirement) and many ccTLD operators. >Patrick Mevzek recently reported on recent deployments here: > >http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cair >o-ccnso-techday-200811.html > >Sorry if the URL gets broken across two lines. > >> Beyond that, I think the bar should be set very high before >> permitting _changes_ during the advancement from draft to >> full standard. After talking with other parties, I suspect >> that while my concerns about TLS would improve the quality of >> the specification, they are not something I feel the IESG >> should force an author/WG change during this advancement >> (it's something I would strongly favor for republication at >> proposed or draft, however). >> >> I don't feel any of the normative references are >> inappropriate for an RFC >> 3967 downward reference. >> >> 1. Move RFC 4930-4934 to full standard without change. I am >> willing to attempt this, although it's less likely to pass >> IETF last call than the other options due to the obsolescence >> of some of the normative references. >> >> 2. Republish with only references updated. This will require >> somewhat less use of the RFC 3967 procedures and make improve >> the odds of a successful last call. >> >> 3. Republish with references updated and operational >> clarifications; primarily documenting the TLS practices that >> have been used in practice to interoperate. I recognize >> there is some risk that the new TLS practices text will not >> be correct, which is why I've decided I'm willing to let this >> issue pass for a draft->full advancement. IMHO, the problem >> should have been noticed and fixed when advancing to draft so >> any errata could be applied when advancing to full. We >> missed the window where it was most appropriate to fix that >> sort of problem, so we shouldn't hold advancement hostage >> over the issue, IMHO. I can't promise my the rest of the >> IESG will agree, but that's my opinion. >> >> So the steps to advance are: >> >> A. Provide data for the "significant benefit to the Internet" >> litmus test. >> I'll need to >> defend this before the IESG. >> B. Choose option 1-3, publish revised I-Ds as appropriate C. >> It would be very helpful to provide candidate RFC 3967 text >> for the last call notice. >> >> and I'll take it forward from there. > >I'm open to either option 2 or 3. What do others think? > >-Scott- -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 18 08:15:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77BD28C0E4 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:15:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3o9smUDj9HL1 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA88228C122 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIG43GN014494 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:04:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIG43aJ023687 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:04:03 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.nlnetlabs.nl (bartok.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.50]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIG42n4023959 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:04:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from bartok.nlnetlabs.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bartok.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBIG3v8W033574; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl) Message-Id: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> To: Edward Lewis cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:09:09 -0500. Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:57 +0100 From: Jaap Akkerhuis X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bartok.nlnetlabs.nl [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:59 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi Scott, I admire your patience over advancing this. Yes, this worth some compliments. When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it. I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I have come across use it. Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports measuring this. Other tasks take precedence. Yes, and it is too bad that they don't. There is an opportunity to learn from ech other experience here. And since the registry operators do have to document and explain these to their registrars anyway, the extra effort shouldn't be that much, at least, that's what I think. Regarding the options - I've never run into any issue with the original spec, I doubt that we have updated anything for quite a while. (We did add DNSSEC extensions and some others, but nothing touching the base.) So I don't have a real opinion on the needed changes. (As in I don't think/know of anything [is] needed.) I'm pretty neutral to the options as well. I always thought that during advancing a document removing (unused) material was not a real problem but changing and or adding material, other then updating references, is close to a no-no, so I would go for the easier one (1 or 2) to keep the processes going. But there are likely people way better versed in IETF process to see what the risk there is for advancing these RFCs. jaap From accounts@caverock.net.nz Thu Dec 18 08:21:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19A83A6955; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:21:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.735 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cyPS-xw6TuXq; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from addo214.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (addo214.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [79.184.66.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 71F063A691E; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:21:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:21:13 -0500 From: "Wiley Bowden" Subject: Christmas Franck Muller watches bargain To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Wiley Christmas is the time to get IWC watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.watchlast.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.watchlast.com/ Sincerely, Mr Bowden From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 18 09:01:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E95F3A68D8 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:01:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k6CeNJnRpBdC for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE4C3A6778 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:01:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIGjEgn023746 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIGjEIp013409 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIGjDuR007512 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBIGjDbN000658; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:13 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBIGj9ME000513; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:09 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:09 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Message-ID: <20081218164509.GC5635@home.patoche.org> References: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:13 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Jaap Akkerhuis 2008-12-18 17:24 > I admire your patience over advancing this. > > Yes, this worth some compliments. Count me too. > When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always > mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it. > I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I > have come across use it. > > Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports > measuring this. Other tasks take precedence. > > Yes, and it is too bad that they don't. There is an opportunity to > learn from ech other experience here. And since the registry operators > do have to document and explain these to their registrars anyway, > the extra effort shouldn't be that much, at least, that's what I > think. If I can again share my experience on this as a third party EPP client implementor, some registries are very hostile even in providing their documentation (describing their local EPP extensions). Some explain that their local registrar market is very competitive and they fear to be criticized. However, most of the time the documentation is public or at least can be available upon request (but I did not hear back from .NL for example :-)). As for building their EPP extension it seems that most registry did it in house, and not always putting their own registrars in the loop and working with them. It happens with some registries, but definitively not all of them. As for OT&E access to test interoperability it is almost impossible (there are some nice exceptions) to have one if you are not a registrar in the relevant TLD. Speaking as for myself I would love to test interoperability with all EPP registries, but of course I can't be a registrar in all of them. If anyone has any idea to change that, I sure would like to hear and help. And as I can see by the very low response to my other thread about my draft, there does not seem to be a lot of interest among registries to collaborate, share their experiences, and build things together. I could understand that for gTLDs that would say there are under a competitive market, but I do not understand that at all for ccTLDs. Maybe (probably) I'm not using the correct form and channels to propagate this idea. -- Patrick Mevzek From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Thu Dec 18 09:30:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00073A6AB7 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:30:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BcBiPhH6T4-5 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E8F3A6778 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIHItma029037 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:55 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIHItG9019228 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:55 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIHIswr018404 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBIHIsXQ013244; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:54 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBIHIrLO013243; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:53 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Message-ID: <20081218171853.GE5635@home.patoche.org> References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07026523E3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:54 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hollenbeck, Scott 2008-12-18 16:16 > If you're asking about overall adoption, I know that it's used by all of > the gTLD operators (it's an ICANN requirement) and many ccTLD operators. > Patrick Mevzek recently reported on recent deployments here: > > http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cair > o-ccnso-techday-200811.html > > Sorry if the URL gets broken across two lines. If that can help, from my software, here are some registries using EPP, sometimes alongside other ancillary protocols, and sometimes still in the process of deploying it (sorry in advance for any error). aero fr re (being currently deployed) ag si (being currently deployed) asia at au be biz br bz cat la cx gs tl ki ms mu nf ht na coop cz eu hn i.3.4.e164.arpa (Infrastructure Enum in Austria) info lc lu me mn mobi name uk no (being currently deployed) nu org pl (over HTTPS) pro pt sc se ch li travel us vc com net cc tv jobs There is also: es (over HTTPS) cn tw im cl ac sh io tm in And I'm sure I've forgotten some... >From the ICANN Caïro meeting I can see that even some "small" ccTLD operator are now interested to provide EPP to their registrars (since most registrars are registering in multiple TLDs, it makes sense for them to consolidate their protocols and so it make sense for a registry to suit them). In short there is a massive move towards EPP (we may already have crossed the top of the curve), and no move in the opposite direction (past critics of EPP, specifically in ccTLDs, have changed their minds or at least agreed to move towards EPP) > > 1. Move RFC 4930-4934 to full standard without change. I am > > willing to attempt this, although it's less likely to pass > > IETF last call than the other options due to the obsolescence > > of some of the normative references. > > > > 2. Republish with only references updated. This will require > > somewhat less use of the RFC 3967 procedures and make improve > > the odds of a successful last call. > > > > 3. Republish with references updated and operational > > clarifications; primarily documenting the TLS practices that > > have been used in practice to interoperate. I recognize > > there is some risk that the new TLS practices text will not > > be correct, which is why I've decided I'm willing to let this > > issue pass for a draft->full advancement. IMHO, the problem > > should have been noticed and fixed when advancing to draft so > > any errata could be applied when advancing to full. We > > missed the window where it was most appropriate to fix that > > sort of problem, so we shouldn't hold advancement hostage > > over the issue, IMHO. I can't promise my the rest of the > > IESG will agree, but that's my opinion. > > > > So the steps to advance are: > > > > A. Provide data for the "significant benefit to the Internet" > > litmus test. > > I'll need to > > defend this before the IESG. Besides the number of TLDs/domain names managed through/with EPP, some quick ideas: - native support for IPv6 in hostnames (was added only late in RRP, see RFC3632) - use of XML hence Unicode hence native support for any kind of IDNs (if the unicode string version need to be passed during the exchange, without any encoding) - support of ENUM provision - support of DNSSEC provision - extensibility to cater for needs of current and future TLDs - standardization on an « EPP authcode » needed for domain name transfers, being adopted by more and more TLDs, this simplifies the life of registrants (the merit of this use can be discussed, but at least it is starting to be uniform in multiple TLDs) > > B. Choose option 1-3, publish revised I-Ds as appropriate C. > > It would be very helpful to provide candidate RFC 3967 text > > for the last call notice. > > > > and I'll take it forward from there. > > I'm open to either option 2 or 3. What do others think? >From an implementor point of view again, TLS is not a problem for EPP deployment, I mean besides just knowing if the registry verify the client certificate and if so which client certificates issuers the registry accept, that it is enough to fullfill RFC4934 (EPP over TCP). It is far more complicated to enable the interoperability on the protocol level, taking into account each registry EPP extensions and various tweaks in namespaces, ordering, result codes, etc. So I would favor option 2, or after that option 3, so that not too much time is used for TLS which is not a big issue for EPP in my mind. -- Patrick Mevzek From jayyongdd@abspc.com Thu Dec 18 12:23:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526A53A6B57 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:23:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -25.754 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-25.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DBros2Vz0pj3 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-93-240-3.dsl.telesp.net.br (201-93-240-3.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.93.240.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F357F3A6A33 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:23:55 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081218202355.F357F3A6A33@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:23:55 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From mauriciolcarvalho@adv.oabsp.org.br Thu Dec 18 15:03:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72823A68D5 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kJP7+L0ZhuRu for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 87-205-179-22.adsl.inetia.pl (87-205-179-22.adsl.inetia.pl [87.205.179.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E1323A63EB for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:00 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081218230303.7E1323A63EB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:00 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From okjdo@136.com Fri Dec 19 07:09:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648773A6A36 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:09:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -39.757 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-39.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNhJmfJhM-Q2 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from OL186-213.fibertel.com.ar (OL186-213.fibertel.com.ar [24.232.213.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 974C03A6A35 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:09:24 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Don't reject my calls! From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081219150924.974C03A6A35@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:09:24 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From micheljones@access2access.com Fri Dec 19 07:18:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B023A63CB for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:18:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WPtyYgYyHTpu for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ak.wakwak.com (unknown [189.73.10.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 113163A6842 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:18:56 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081219151857.113163A6842@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:18:56 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From leon.stolckt@accessworldwide.com Fri Dec 19 08:36:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0DA28C136 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:36:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -23.375 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-23.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_OFF=2.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TkvYitFTIi2u for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from host124.190-136-176.telecom.net.ar (host124.190-136-176.telecom.net.ar [190.136.176.124]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A589A28C125 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:36:31 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Dear provreg-archive, Dec 87% 0FF From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081219163633.A589A28C125@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:36:31 -0800 (PST) Dear Customer!
Lovers package at discount price!
Discount price store: ID 34799
http://lowpeople.com/

Pfizer is a licensee of the TRUSTe Privacy Program.
© 2001-2008 Pfizer Inc. All rights reserved. From maina@3mice.com Sat Dec 20 06:56:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33413A6827 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:56:53 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char C2 hex): Subject: Canadian Store \302\256 Official Site\n X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.181 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, GB_H_CANADIAN=0.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM=1.444, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SUBJECT_NEEDS_ENCODING=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZ0MZAH0SVAW for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:56:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from 217.216.19.236.dyn.user.ono.com (217.216.19.236.dyn.user.ono.com [217.216.19.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 784923A67A1 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:56:48 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Canadian Store ® Official Site From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081220145650.784923A67A1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:56:48 -0800 (PST) Dear Customer!
Lovers package at discount price!
Discount price store: ID 44974
http://intuitionthick.com/

Pfizer is a licensee of the TRUSTe Privacy Program.
© 2001-2008 Pfizer Inc. All rights reserved. From mario.sabugo@agcba.gov.ar Sat Dec 20 23:02:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B72D3A6857 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:02:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0eHYiQkijdCj for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from c-68-62-53-0.hsd1.mi.comcast.net (c-68-62-53-0.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.62.53.0]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AF3E33A6833 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:01:59 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Get quit of health disorders From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081221070200.AF3E33A6833@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:01:59 -0800 (PST) Don't hesitate to take advantage of all our discounts for popular remedies! From lubnaabdelaziz@ahram.org.eg Sun Dec 21 07:26:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300E43A69F4 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:26:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXGvkD24Qh0P for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:26:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from 116-89-112.adsl.terra.cl (116-89-112.adsl.terra.cl [200.112.89.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE6CC3A681C for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:26:50 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: You probably gave wrong number From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081221152650.DE6CC3A681C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:26:50 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 22 06:36:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0003C3A6808 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:36:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKPB4p72wUs9 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8FE3A6882 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMEPRBe025029 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:27 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBMEPRna011394 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:27 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMEPQHT020450 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB30A21; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:23 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id BUPH3djRfAAp; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:19 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78224F; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:18 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBMEPH8J020868; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:18 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <494FA34D.1010708@knipp.de> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:17 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081221 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olafur Gudmundsson CC: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> <200812181509.mBIF9Cs5085707@stora.ogud.com> In-Reply-To: <200812181509.mBIF9Cs5085707@stora.ogud.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 18/12/08 16:08, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: >> The DS data is not a separate object, but part of the domain object, >> so there is no question that it shall be transferred along with the >> domain itself. Also it is doubtless that the data MAY NOT be cleared. > > Clearing DS is what you do when child stops using DNSSEC, thus it must > be allowed. > Sure -- I expressed myself unclear. I meant that they should not be cleared as a side effect of transfers, as a transfer not necessarily means that the domain is moved to a new name server operator and/or to a new set of name servers. > > [...] > > The important question that registries need to ask them self is > "Does the DS record in the EPP update the data go into the registry or > does it only go in if/after the child's DNSKEY RRset has a key that > matches the DS record?" A pre-check may reduce the risk of human/machine errors that either make the domain unsigned or suggest the domain being compromised. But it seems to me that it does not improve security in general. Thinking a little bit more of my question after your and Patrick's answers, I have to admit that it is probably not a good idea -- first, the establishment and management of this channel is a problem. If one would not trust the registrar/reseller chain enough, this separate channel could not be created/maintained using their credibility. However, alternative solutions are likely hard to find. Second, name server assignment/host management would need to be moved to the name server operators as well. This sounds like a big responsibility mess. Regards, Klaus From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 22 07:15:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91593A6A30 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:15:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.353 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AJVzUL-1pPET for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6383A69ED for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMF41XC001661 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBMF415h008784 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMF41QY028466 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 00DFD1C011C; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE7B1C00FD; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E485DA1D9C5; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:00 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Patrick Mevzek Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Message-ID: <20081222150400.GA22297@nic.fr> References: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> <20081218164509.GC5635@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081218164509.GC5635@home.patoche.org> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:45:09PM +0100, Patrick Mevzek wrote a message of 52 lines which said: > And as I can see by the very low response to my other thread about > my draft, there does not seem to be a lot of interest among > registries to collaborate, share their experiences, and build things > together. Hold on! I've read it, I was planning to comment on it but it was posted only nine days ago and there were other things to do during this time... From nxralx@alexmann.com Mon Dec 22 12:23:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890543A6A6D for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:23:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DgCiba1VgcvG for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from allstream.net (unknown [206.8.13.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BC6E93A6983 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:23:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: I'm in trouble, where are you? From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081222202337.BC6E93A6983@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:23:37 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From jernejsekd@alin.si Tue Dec 23 08:30:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D0928C141 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:30:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -31.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-31.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, SARE_SUB_YOUR_WOMAN=1.666, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1DcLJNIyki-k for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-71-180-181-132.tampfl.fios.verizon.net (pool-71-180-181-132.tampfl.fios.verizon.net [71.180.181.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC4163A6831 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:30:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Satisfy your woman's craving easily From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081223163038.AC4163A6831@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:30:37 -0800 (PST) Make it get bigger, go for it! From koishi@alphanet.ne.jp Tue Dec 23 17:46:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3312F3A67DD for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:46:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_DIALIN=3.384, HELO_EQ_DIP_DIALIN=1.573, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8xRJLnfWN0R for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:46:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from p54BAB220.dip.t-dialin.net (p54BACE7D.dip.t-dialin.net [84.186.206.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 29DC73A6814 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:46:35 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Lost my number? ) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081224014637.29DC73A6814@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:46:35 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From kerryhaysmary@amaltal.co.nz Wed Dec 24 18:55:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8BB3A679C for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:55:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -47.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-47.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12=2.46, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EoK8JMj7H7Op for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from amschool.edu.sv (unknown [118.97.26.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E16C3A6956 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:55:49 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Please your love mate by 100% From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081225025549.8E16C3A6956@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:55:49 -0800 (PST)

If you are unable to see the message below, click here to view.

Increase its dimension to spice up your life!

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY - This is being sent from an unattended mailbox.

Copyright © 2008 MaxGentleman, Inc. All rights reserved.
5 Trowbridge Drive, Bethel, CT 814138

You have received this message because you
opted in to receives MaxGentleman pecial offers via email.

You can unsubscribe here

 From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Wed Dec 24 19:16:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947643A68F9 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:16:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.720, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FeaVB8lFbXkX for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139C33A679C for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBP35JK2005565 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:19 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBP35JpA013293 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:19 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBP35ITs023376 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBP35IAC032569; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:18 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBP35FG4032450; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:15 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:15 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> References: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:18 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk James Gould 2008-12-11 18:59 > I disagree with your following paragraph: Ok, I have no strong opinion in either case. For a recap, we have: - ns : add and/or rem - contact : add and/or rem - status : add and/or rem - registrant : chg - authInfo : chg - secDNS : add and/or rem and/or chg > It boils down to a transactional consistency issue. An individual EPP > command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single database > transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either manages the DS > data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the Registrant to update the DS > data, having to manage the updates in separate commands and subsequently > separate transactions is more complex and will cause transactional > inconsistency. But this is already the case elsewere then. For example, for nameservers if you want to *change* them (irrelevant to what they are now) you need to know the current set to be able to do a rem and add the correct set. This is one operation, yes. But how do you know the current set ? Ok, you should be a properly managed registrar and have a local copy of this information. Even then, after a transfer for example, you will need a domain:info before your domain:update, so 2 operations, and even if the domain:info has no side effect there still could happen many things between the two that would create transactional inconsistencies. Also when you speak below about domain transfers currently this means at least three operations: domain:transfer, domain:info to learn the new nameservers/contacts and then domain:update. A lot of inconsistencies can happen there, in part due to the huge number of related parties for such a case (the registry, the current registrar, the new registrar, the registrant or admin contact or someone having pulled the authInfo code from the current registrar to give the new one, maybe the new hosting company (if != new registrar) and the old none (if != old registrar), and even we could imagine the key management authority (if != hosting company), both old and new one... this is like 10 entities for an operation that could be seen - depending on the level of where you sit to view it - as a single operation/transaction ; registrants do view it like that, they do not understand why a "simple" change of "webhosting" company needs participation of so many entities with rules to follow, delays to wait, etc.) So for me, we should be able to have add *or* rem *or* chg for any kind of item, but only one of the three in a given domain:update. > The only way to keep transactional consistency with the > desire of a Registrant that uses a Registrar¹s UI to manage DS data is to > have the UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a > combination. I believe I have said the same things when saying: no mix. > There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed domain is > transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer along with it > or does it get cleared. I¹m assuming that it would be transferred along in > a similar model as the name servers. A domain name transfer should have no consequences to the running state of the domain and its resolution. So, as the name servers are preserved during a domain name transfer, all related information such as keys should be preserved too in my mind. Also, in part because of the problem outlined above, some registries have extended EPP to permit the specification of new nameservers and/or contacts when the domain:transfer operation is started, which basically is identical to a domain:transfer + domain:update without fear of consistency issues (and if the domaine:update would allow a domain:ns in the chg node). It can be seen as a delayed/callback system. The registrar asks for a domain:transfer (that may succeed or not, immediately or later on) but ties the success of this operation with some others (change of nameserves, contacts, etc.) while sending everything in one command to the registry that will ensure atomicity over the whole set of changes (either domain:transfer fails without obviously any change or domainl:transfer succeeds with all changes asked for in nameservers, contacts, etc.). > It is up to the gaining Registrar to > update the name servers and DS data assuming that the hosting is changing > along with the transfer. In this case, the gaining Registrar would have a > need to remove the existing name servers, add the new name servers, and do > the same with the DS data. It has a need to *replace* the current set of nameservers with a new set. He should be able to do that without even having to know the current set. Hence the usefulness of the domain:update chg for nameservers (and same for contacts or statuses) or some registries extension to do that during the domain:transfer. > Having this done in separate commands / > transactions would result in DNS getting incremental changes based on the > add and remove order chosen by the Registrar. Again, not a problem with a domain:update chg domain:ns or specifying new nameservers (and key materials but since DNSSEC is not widely deployed it I've not seen it used the same way in an extended domain:transfer) directly into the domain:transfer operation. > It is much cleaner to simply > be able to remove and add in a single command and single transaction, which > will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. It believe it is even cleaner to be able to force a new set without even have to know the previous one. > I don¹t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes is > overly complicated. The RFC could include text that describes some of the > basic rules to ensure there is consistency. That assumes that all > Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your ³EPP : An implementor > experience and recommendations² is doesn¹t look like that is the case. I believe in this case that we are more touching issues not strictly technical. EPP with the current behaviour in domain:update is one point of view, it has merits and drawbacks and other points of view have other merits and other drawbacks. But seeing that some registries did extend it to support other point of view just make me think that domain:update should be made simpler with my 2 points (add or rem or chg for any item, and no mix of any of these 3 in any single domain:update) which would also then accomodate all points of view. I do note that domain:update is a very specific case as due to its nature it is more difficult to properly extend it, and this also created problems in the past (empty domain:update needed or not in case of extensions nodes attached to the command). > In either event, changing the choice to a sequence is backward compatible, so > it should not break current client implementations. The protocol should > address the most common use cases and ensure transactional consistency. I think in a previous message I've tried to gather some use cases that seemed legitimate to me... but it was more a bait than anything else to make registrars let us know what they do most of the times and/or registries pull some statistics on this topic based on their logs :-) With that data from "true" sources, I believe it would be easier to see what are the needs and the use cases. We would of course need to take into account extensions related to this, like I've said above the fact that registries permit specifying nameservers/contacts during a domain:transfer, and seeing how it is used by their registrars. -- Patrick Mevzek From laercio.francisco@alcoa.com.br Thu Dec 25 10:37:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD5F3A6A30 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:37:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -27.133 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-27.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tz2U1PR6dUWN for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from CABLE-72-53-91-67.cia.com (CABLE-72-53-91-67.cia.com [72.53.91.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DF1E3A6A33 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Why did you leave me? From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081225183756.4DF1E3A6A33@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From my008lqh@263.net Fri Dec 26 07:10:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DEF3A68B9 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:10:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -28.191 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-28.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0rpmJs7MLexI for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:10:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc8-lewi13-0-0-cust237.bmly.cable.virginmedia.com (cpc8-lewi13-0-0-cust237.bmly.cable.virginmedia.com [86.14.124.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D7DD3A6901 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:10:21 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your sweetheart will like it! From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081226151025.5D7DD3A6901@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:10:21 -0800 (PST) Get ready for permanent enlargement of your dearest part of the body! From jxs034@573.cn Fri Dec 26 14:03:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288D53A6A25 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:03:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -29.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-29.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12=2.46, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V80CdDzZ68P9 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-29-109-131-tb.cpe.vivax.com.br (189-29-109-131-tb.cpe.vivax.com.br [189.29.109.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 125873A6A15 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:03:33 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Get stronger and more skillful in bed From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081226220335.125873A6A15@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:03:33 -0800 (PST)

If you are unable to see the message below, click here to view.

Shop our online store for all your prescription needs!

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY - This is being sent from an unattended mailbox.

Copyright © 2008 MaxGentleman, Inc. All rights reserved.
5 Trowbridge Drive, Bethel, CT 783550

You have received this message because you
opted in to receives MaxGentleman pecial offers via email.

You can unsubscribe here

 From kabbelov@andreasarjona.com Fri Dec 26 15:22:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F03F3A6859 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:22:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -37.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-37.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xmzkV+LJ7nkm for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:22:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from americanhotel.com (unknown [189.5.5.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8577A3A684C for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:22:25 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: failure notice From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081226232226.8577A3A684C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:22:25 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From mollie@2by2.net Fri Dec 26 18:24:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B8628B797 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:24:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -43.805 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-43.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id towx63eaJH1O for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from 173-16-151-39.client.mchsi.com (173-16-151-39.client.mchsi.com [173.16.151.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 181143A6A56 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:24:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Non delivery report: 5.9.4 (Spam SLS/RBL) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081227022438.181143A6A56@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:24:37 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From lisa.tapley@afbic.com Sat Dec 27 03:36:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C935A3A6783 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:36:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -35.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-35.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAH2RRJISPrn for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:36:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from doz62.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (cou123.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.31.200.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7C6F3A66B4 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:36:42 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: You probably gave wrong number From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081227113643.D7C6F3A66B4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:36:42 -0800 (PST) Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Sun Dec 28 09:49:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5083A69FB for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:49:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.446, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uQ7kdyT5Y-zJ for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CCB3A6808 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBSHZsEs008767 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:35:54 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBSHZsR4003663 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:35:54 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBSHZrAg028100 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:35:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBSHUAHr016050; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:35:49 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:35:48 -0500 Message-ID: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclmQP6ikKV4A/5+S56wCNfvoXLfXACzFcjQ From: "Gould, James" To: "Patrick Mevzek" , "EPP Provreg" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2008 17:35:49.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[B964F960:01C96912] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBSHZrAg001758 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrick, My point of transactional consistency does not deal with the difference between managing a list via deltas (add and remove) versus a complete set (chg), but deals with the inability to manage a list effectively with either since RFC 4310 does not allow the DS data to be managed using deltas (add AND remove) or a compete set (chg). Transactional consistency deals with writable operations, where obtaining the current list of name servers, statuses, or contacts from a local datastore or from the Registry is not part of the transaction context. In my opinion splitting updates across three commands (info, transfer, and update) is fine since info is not part of the transaction context, the transfer is simply a request to change sponsorship of the domain, and the final update should set the domain to the desired state once the transfer is completed and the gaining Registrar is authorized to make the change. When managing an individual list attribute, being able to do both an add! and remove in a single command will allow the list attribute to have a consistent matching state on the Registry side and in DNS. This seems to me to be simpler and less error prone. As far as extensions go, I believe that the ability to add extensions is one of the key features of EPP considering that "E" stands for extensible. Hopefully the Registries make the extensions as opt ins instead of requirements. Each Registry has different business models that can be supported by extensions, but the base specifications should continue to hold true. For example, for .COM and .NET we received feedback from the Registrars that they needed information in EPP that was only available via Whois to support transfers, so we created an extension that would allow them to request it with an info command. Adding an extension for transfers to do more than change sponsorship when the transfer is completed is not a bad idea as long as its optional. I believe it is a best practice to incrementally add extensions as opt ins to increase the value to the channel, where some extensions are specific to a Registry and some extensions are more cross-cutting and could be consid! ered for a standards track. Overall, I believe that the inability to do both an add and remove in RFC 4310 is an oversight that should be addressed to be consistent with the rest of the EPP specifications and to ensure transactional consistency, but I'm not sure if it is bad enough to warrant the process to make the change on its own. Based on the provreg e-mail list it doesn't look like anyone beliefs that it does warrant a change to RFC 4310 at this point (other than maybe me), so if there is anyone out there that believes that it does please reply to the list. Thanks, JG ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:05 PM To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question James Gould 2008-12-11 18:59 > I disagree with your following paragraph: Ok, I have no strong opinion in either case. For a recap, we have: - ns : add and/or rem - contact : add and/or rem - status : add and/or rem - registrant : chg - authInfo : chg - secDNS : add and/or rem and/or chg > It boils down to a transactional consistency issue. An individual EPP > command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single > database transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either > manages the DS data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the > Registrant to update the DS data, having to manage the updates in > separate commands and subsequently separate transactions is more > complex and will cause transactional inconsistency. But this is already the case elsewere then. For example, for nameservers if you want to *change* them (irrelevant to what they are now) you need to know the current set to be able to do a rem and add the correct set. This is one operation, yes. But how do you know the current set ? Ok, you should be a properly managed registrar and have a local copy of this information. Even then, after a transfer for example, you will need a domain:info before your domain:update, so 2 operations, and even if the domain:info has no side effect there still could happen many things between the two that would create transactional inconsistencies. Also when you speak below about domain transfers currently this means at least three operations: domain:transfer, domain:info to learn the new nameservers/contacts and then domain:update. A lot of inconsistencies can happen there, in part due to the huge number of related parties for such a case (the registry, the current registrar, the new registrar, the registrant or admin contact or someone having pulled the authInfo code from the current registrar to give the new one, maybe the new hosting company (if != new registrar) and the old none (if != old registrar), and even we could imagine the key management authority (if != hosting company), both old and new one... this is like 10 entities for an operation that could be seen - depending on the level of where you sit to view it - as a single operation/transaction ; registrants do view it like that, they do not understand why a "simple" change of "webhosting" company needs participation of so many entities with rules to follow, delays to wait, etc.) So for me, we should be able to have add *or* rem *or* chg for any kind of item, but only one of the three in a given domain:update. > The only way to keep transactional consistency with the desire of a > Registrant that uses a Registrar¹s UI to manage DS data is to have the > UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a combination. I believe I have said the same things when saying: no mix. > There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed > domain is transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer > along with it or does it get cleared. I¹m assuming that it would be > transferred along in a similar model as the name servers. A domain name transfer should have no consequences to the running state of the domain and its resolution. So, as the name servers are preserved during a domain name transfer, all related information such as keys should be preserved too in my mind. Also, in part because of the problem outlined above, some registries have extended EPP to permit the specification of new nameservers and/or contacts when the domain:transfer operation is started, which basically is identical to a domain:transfer + domain:update without fear of consistency issues (and if the domaine:update would allow a domain:ns in the chg node). It can be seen as a delayed/callback system. The registrar asks for a domain:transfer (that may succeed or not, immediately or later on) but ties the success of this operation with some others (change of nameserves, contacts, etc.) while sending everything in one command to the registry that will ensure atomicity over the whole set of changes (either domain:transfer fails without obviously any change or domainl:transfer succeeds with all changes asked for in nameservers, contacts, etc.). > It is up to the gaining Registrar to > update the name servers and DS data assuming that the hosting is > changing along with the transfer. In this case, the gaining Registrar > would have a need to remove the existing name servers, add the new > name servers, and do the same with the DS data. It has a need to *replace* the current set of nameservers with a new set. He should be able to do that without even having to know the current set. Hence the usefulness of the domain:update chg for nameservers (and same for contacts or statuses) or some registries extension to do that during the domain:transfer. > Having this done in separate commands / transactions would result in > DNS getting incremental changes based on the add and remove order > chosen by the Registrar. Again, not a problem with a domain:update chg domain:ns or specifying new nameservers (and key materials but since DNSSEC is not widely deployed it I've not seen it used the same way in an extended domain:transfer) directly into the domain:transfer operation. > It is much cleaner to simply > be able to remove and add in a single command and single transaction, > which will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. It believe it is even cleaner to be able to force a new set without even have to know the previous one. > I don¹t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes > is overly complicated. The RFC could include text that describes some > of the basic rules to ensure there is consistency. That assumes that > all Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your ³EPP : An > implementor experience and recommendations² is doesn¹t look like that is the case. I believe in this case that we are more touching issues not strictly technical. EPP with the current behaviour in domain:update is one point of view, it has merits and drawbacks and other points of view have other merits and other drawbacks. But seeing that some registries did extend it to support other point of view just make me think that domain:update should be made simpler with my 2 points (add or rem or chg for any item, and no mix of any of these 3 in any single domain:update) which would also then accomodate all points of view. I do note that domain:update is a very specific case as due to its nature it is more difficult to properly extend it, and this also created problems in the past (empty domain:update needed or not in case of extensions nodes attached to the command). > In either event, changing the choice to a sequence is backward > compatible, so it should not break current client implementations. > The protocol should address the most common use cases and ensure transactional consistency. I think in a previous message I've tried to gather some use cases that seemed legitimate to me... but it was more a bait than anything else to make registrars let us know what they do most of the times and/or registries pull some statistics on this topic based on their logs :-) With that data from "true" sources, I believe it would be easier to see what are the needs and the use cases. We would of course need to take into account extensions related to this, like I've said above the fact that registries permit specifying nameservers/contacts during a domain:transfer, and seeing how it is used by their registrars. -- Patrick Mevzek From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 29 07:06:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5495F28C259 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:06:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qnuFQ4p20gZ for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ABC3A689C for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:06:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTEi70T024729 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTEi7ZN023000 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:07 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTEi6m4025973 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC4E82FE97EF for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:44:04 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , EPP Provreg References: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi, On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:35:48PM -0500, Gould, James wrote: > > Overall, I believe that the inability to do both an add and remove > in RFC 4310 is an oversight that should be addressed to be > consistent with the rest of the EPP specifications and to ensure > transactional consistency, but I'm not sure if it is bad enough to > warrant the process to make the change on its own. Based on the > provreg e-mail list it doesn't look like anyone beliefs that it does > warrant a change to RFC 4310 at this point (other than maybe me), so > if there is anyone out there that believes that it does please reply > to the list. I think it does, and I'm willing to work on such changes. I do worry about the operational effects of performing add and remove at the same time: it seems to me to be the sort of thing that could take a domain dark. There's an additional issue in this area that's troubling to me, which has to do with domain transfers in a DNSSEC context, particularly in cases where the private keys for the two sponsors can't be shared (imagine the case where the two sponsors are each involved in operating the DNS for the target domain; in this case, they're not going to share private keys with one another). It seems to me that in such a case, a sponsor needs to be able to add a DS record to a domain object when the sponsor doesn't actually own the domain. This is problematic, because obviously we don't want random others being able to add properties to the objects one sponsors. It would be possible to allow this while a transfer is pending, but often there are various prohibitions on such a domain, and perhaps those will conflict with the ability of the gaining sponsor to add properties to the prospectively-transferred domain. Thoughts? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 29 07:53:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628B93A6A76 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:53:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.741 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fdu2nCDKeu4T for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A013A6C3E for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTFVYVT001113 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTFVYCs027569 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:34 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTFVW9D005569 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from [10.31.200.131] (ns.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBTFVUrm096003; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:31:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> References: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:31:24 -0500 To: Andrew Sullivan From: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Cc: EPP Provreg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 10.20.30.4 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk At 9:44 -0500 12/29/08, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >There's an additional issue in this area that's troubling to me, which >has to do with domain transfers in a DNSSEC context, particularly in >cases where the private keys for the two sponsors can't be shared >(imagine the case where the two sponsors are each involved in >operating the DNS for the target domain; in this case, they're not >going to share private keys with one another). It seems to me that in >such a case, a sponsor needs to be able to add a DS record to a domain >object when the sponsor doesn't actually own the domain. This is >problematic, because obviously we don't want random others being able >to add properties to the objects one sponsors. It would be possible >to allow this while a transfer is pending, but often there are various >prohibitions on such a domain, and perhaps those will conflict with >the ability of the gaining sponsor to add properties to the >prospectively-transferred domain. Thoughts? What do you mean by "the private keys for the two sponsors?" Splitting hairs, the signing of DNS information happens after it leaves the database (of the registry) and before it hits what is currently known as the DNS (the master server). If a registrant has two operators for DNS (and many do), the operators are either both offering slave service or one is slaving off the other. IOW, if there are two sources of key-pairs for a domain name, there's trouble elsewhere. Maybe I don't understand the situation you have in mind. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 29 10:34:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BBD28C270 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:34:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RIKFMu3APnHX for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:34:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F8C28C257 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:33:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTIAjMf009850 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:10:45 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTIAjWR020515 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:10:45 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTIAjIL028392 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:10:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46AEE2FE97ED for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:10:42 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081229181042.GB30962@shinkuro.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , EPP Provreg References: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:31:24AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: > What do you mean by "the private keys for the two sponsors?" > > Splitting hairs, the signing of DNS information happens after it leaves > the database (of the registry) and before it hits what is currently known > as the DNS (the master server). If a registrant has two operators for > DNS (and many do), the operators are either both offering slave service > or one is slaving off the other. > > IOW, if there are two sources of key-pairs for a domain name, there's > trouble elsewhere. > > Maybe I don't understand the situation you have in mind. Suppose I have RegA and RegB, and a registrant with example.org sponsored by RegA. RegA also happens to be the DNS operator for example.org. Example.org is signed. If the registrant wants to move to RegB, there's a potential problem. RegA operates the DNS, and therefore presumably has the private keys for the current keying material corresponding to the DS record in .org. There are a few possibilities I've thought of (in no particular order): 1. Create new keys, publish them in RegA's DNS and as the DS in the .org DNS, and then use those keys for RegB's DNS as well. This requires the registrant to know something about DNS, I expect, and also requires RegA to present an interface for registrant to send the key information (and RegA may not have such an interface). 2. Get RegA to give the private key data to RegB. This is a bad idea anyway, and anyway I doubt anyone would co-operate with it. 3. Co-ordinate the operation (independently) between RegA and RegB. This requires that every DNSSEC-operating registrar in every registry have some sort of bilateral communication with every other registrar. I doubt this will work. 4. Make it possible for RegB to modify the DNS data of the domain while the domain is pending transfer. This strikes me as a very EPP-like way to do it: the gaining client initiated the transfer, then sends the update command with the new name servers and key data to the registry. The domain is in pendingUpdate _and_ pendingTransfer status until the transfer is approved, at which point the updates automatically happen. If the transfer is refused, then the update fails as well. I _think_ this is compatible with the current RFCs, but I'm not aware of any currently deployed code that works this way. 5. Go through an insecure phase 6. RegB obtains the necessary (public) key data from RegA and publishes all of it in the RegB DNS. By carefully sequencing the addition of additional records and removal of old ones, the domain remains secure the whole time. This can be made to work today, but I think it's a little fragile. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 29 15:44:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32B93A67E6 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.316 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qb6ylYv+OslE for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619EE28C271 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTNWQ8R026052 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:26 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTNWQjA007584 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:26 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from publisher.de (lvps87-230-32-221.dedicated.hosteurope.de [87.230.32.221]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTNWPTV022524 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:25 +0100 (MET) From: liste@publisher.de Message-Id: <200812292332.mBTNWPTV022524@nic.cafax.se> Received: (qmail 17982 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2008 23:32:25 +0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk To: undisclosed-recipients:;  Received: from p5b006002.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO ?192.168.2.103?) (91.0.96.2) by lvps87-230-32-221.dedicated.hosteurope.de with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 29 Dec 2008 23:32:24 +0000 Subject: definition From: Ulrich Wisser To: EPP Provreg Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J" Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:31:01 +0100 Message-Id: <1230593461.11548.311.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 --=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, my name is Ulrich and I am working for .SE (the Swedish registry). Among other other things I am responsible for the .SE EPP server. During the implementation of our EPP server (and client) I found the definition to be incomplete. I have no idea if this has already been discussed on the list? I haven't been able to find it in the archives. Please feel free to point me to any old discussion if applicable. For only keyTag can be specified. But DNSSec explicitly defines the keyTag to be *not* unique for a zone. Only algorithm an dkeyTag together are unique. Besides that it is possible to specify several DS records for the same key but with diffrent digestTypes.=20 Currently due to the low depolyment of DNSSec and due to the fact that only one algorithm is required in DNSSec this is not really a problem, but it could become one in the future. Here at .SE we currently publish two DS records for every key, one with digest type SHA-1 and one with digest type SHA-256. (Try dnssec.se) My proposal would be to add two optional tags to the tag Which would be fully backward compatible, but still allow to be more precis if needed. Kind regards Ulrich =20 --=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFYjCCBV4w ggNGoAMCAQICAwO40TANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQL ExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3Jp dHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0wNzA2MjMyMTI5MDdaFw0w OTA2MjIyMTI5MDdaMFExFjAUBgNVBAMTDVVscmljaCBXaXNzZXIxNzA1BgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWKDJj OWM4NWRhMTAzMmRmNDc2NTg5MGZjZWIxZDJmNGNjYTlkMTYxMGMwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCu0E1V+wRtD4Lnqu/NdOxsgNZHc6WvCH9+JMAvVTumjfMB6wIt686F76Mp xC6xCxFno8pvAdOcosnzIErulQ7HFz7Hu75GKNZE8uhp5o1Fx0FbrpkfaGMJTabfXD6liFPSeXt2 E6Hts0HnAbiWqNPoo4Tk6K/I9lIWJr+FlpkHOBNMd2wVm7edwfjzt8wBnMwwFKAGp2CO+4rOdamm WNRKOhUnlhZ88aOnLbvI5bjXHjOQy80TVG/mPBVmEBfcs2Tr5IqWvYvRli0BTsnLReOBudYKo99/ 2i4V9pPncYVa+tprpnqmFlntetzUUJH7HHJzrKaQwvQC0d7XpzerezhxAgMBAAGjggEVMIIBETAM BgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMFYGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQRJFkdUbyBnZXQgeW91ciBvd24gY2VydGlmaWNhdGUg Zm9yIEZSRUUgaGVhZCBvdmVyIHRvIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuQ0FjZXJ0Lm9yZzBABgNVHSUEOTA3Bggr BgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCisGAQQBgjcKAwQGCisGAQQBgjcKAwMGCWCGSAGG+EIEATAyBggr BgEFBQcBAQQmMCQwIgYIKwYBBQUHMAGGFmh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNhY2VydC5vcmcwMwYDVR0RBCww KoEoMmM5Yzg1ZGExMDMyZGY0NzY1ODkwZmNlYjFkMmY0Y2NhOWQxNjEwYzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAgEAiYpAf/5fXWJD1tB7YbZecUy9Ww6Y2y5MwTvIquEP36SuD70yOXOZ8sB2mt7sjuPeFmjw kU2jHyYjmzGUochSk1bpd2VxGtfHKUUxl8BZyJ5UH8oGNHqgKiSXrpxkbSzzboS+7dbrL0va1zMg xdgZS22HWjufwowEVKA/jUfyt8k1A2A7qNhZu8QUCOvH2SpP0dOwzhLmVFirUY/AH+CbvvkNFlJF ocTOtloLFV78pB5M5lYJKcq/LzAHuOJr69mpLp46iZVte3ZqQsdtE/q1H+cvInA7vZs1mDyEIhag RsKsIsDPVnEnzalaTO1cAKySgictdD/krK3KpS2Wdjnrxye8GaDRkHDlcnARQaCVzG+6BeC8MRtw 1POwcq0q7LJSvThfCAiw8DL7ya6+SrjSzKiQNyIDoaXDR6WmXs6/8AI++bFnperuhcoFX1nImLfy QPuff8vGyv05o3d2GkJ8xS4CDHqNxkRQSWNwXYB5zVxipWmfFI9D0r0y3mY202a0JyZd9eVT0yAz dMolC+MqCEpY+q7eBraBdfp5Ds3JYQaWIr+heJGaFSKgfCxYxMeUHK3DVOQZjMN7VBruo2D800+l YKqON6b+ff5EP8qml+W7xMeRY7Qv1vDuIhN3TBVDtHnJS3lc6yN1WEf9toOl+4tfXkczp1d8g6xh jisyn6wxggIHMIICAwIBATCBgDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8v d3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkq hkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDA7jRMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgXTAYBgkqhkiG9w0B CQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wODEyMjkyMzMxMDFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BDEWBBTJ8K3lMYSkNGOw7OQfcdyRld5ptzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQB7Ztt5rRDW6KPkmNse iCT8Xbvl2encdXTbLAIzBDI4NGVSbWfKOoxezgDJHN1RWvJjy3Dh6j+QJ6g7Y1ysHM0EgzuEHfqi fCf6HkvrF6PbBRJHRbIPAVoAVrWrBoHhKtTDLvGTLr38dL8M4qtlRBF57VPTdn+rUKhny1gLr6Ha 7La3PyvXWa0anRo8Zd4RBtDgt8EQkwlrlhcPyvmwmq9igrKz6VQhsoZg6ZqnEPOOBQtgNZtz1JTc UBHrTJkkGcdh3CBthuQulKdVLw2nh9lx8fTbpSx7BQQp85aZ4KXwMtyDU7cjraC011QI+z0dBZ1+ GT15JsTXzGAX5cp5/HlAAAAAAAAA --=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J-- From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Mon Dec 29 16:34:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC37E28C0DF for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:34:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.069 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfAHNH3U278w for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:34:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB47128C0E4 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU0IniR009576 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBU0InJd004387 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU0InNi012267 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1492B21; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id iptOtUrWV075; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:47 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413E635; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:47 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (klaus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBU0IjPY000203; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:46 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <495968E0.2090207@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:40 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081228 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: liste@publisher.de CC: EPP Provreg Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: References: <200812292332.mBTNWPTV022524@nic.cafax.se> In-Reply-To: <200812292332.mBTNWPTV022524@nic.cafax.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 2008-12-30 00:32, liste@publisher.de wrote: > > Hello, > > my name is Ulrich and I am working for .SE (the Swedish registry). Among > other other things I am responsible for the .SE EPP server. > > During the implementation of our EPP server (and client) I found the > definition to be incomplete. I have no idea if this has > already been discussed on the list? I haven't been able to find it in > the archives. Please feel free to point me to any old discussion if > applicable. > > For only keyTag can be specified. But DNSSec explicitly > defines the keyTag to be *not* unique for a zone. Only algorithm an > dkeyTag together are unique. Besides that it is possible to specify > several DS records for the same key but with diffrent digestTypes.=20 > > Currently due to the low depolyment of DNSSec and due to the fact that > only one algorithm is required in DNSSec this is not really a problem, > but it could become one in the future. > > Here at .SE we currently publish two DS records for every key, one with > digest type SHA-1 and one with digest type SHA-256. (Try dnssec.se) > > My proposal would be to add two optional tags to the tag > > > > > Which would be fully backward compatible, but still allow to be more > precis if needed. > > Kind regards > > Ulrich Hi Ulrich, I discovered this issue back in 2005. I got two answers, one from Scott Hollenbeck, vaguely referring me to some not further specified discussions on the dnsop list and one from Ólafur Guðmundsson. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the latter e-mail in the list archive, so I cannot point to this e-mail, but have to quote it from my personal archive: - - - 8< - - - > * Using the 16 Bit key tag of the key to identify the DS/DNSKEY that > should be removed from the domain is a bit risky having the probability > in mind that more than one key has exactly this tag. DNSSEC never relies > on the uniqueness of this tag. First question: Who gets harmed Answer: Registrant. As the number of DS at any delegation is supposed to be small (<=5) the probability of collision is low, as the keys pointed to by DS are supposed to be strong it is real stupid to have keys that collide. In short this is going to be infrequent if DS set is a replace operation then this is a non issue. A smart registry is perfectly within the protocol bounds by refusing the a DS that conflicts in the key_tag + alg, (or if the digest for two keys of the same alg is the same). - - - 8< - - - Regards, Klaus From owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Tue Dec 30 00:21:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE613A69A1 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:21:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJmf4CgtNn-J for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:21:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAB93A6A6E for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:21:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU89wdp006473 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBU89wE1008518 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU89wYS012024 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0100 (MET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,300,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="29706761" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Dec 2008 08:09:49 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU89nMu003474 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:49 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBU89nD2026241 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:09:49 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] ([10.61.86.54]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:49 +0100 Message-Id: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: EPP Provreg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: [ietf-provreg] epp in python? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:46 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2008 08:09:49.0137 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC1E2C10:01C96A55] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=271; t=1230624589; x=1231488589; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20

|Subject:=20epp=20in=20python? |Sender:=20; bh=yp+pivjTgWWUhshhlDnIL1fxiv8vE6WbZYkSoE15z7c=; b=nFw1vCmfvfqV55oajqMQ5dkoiB/shilGdoLoHeesSw8BbZUf9nA1Rlk/u1 gWNiZq2t9KKEvZ/kJ4ngcUfXfLj676sgC+M5sklMHy1xVGsP2RVGb+HnQvnf a/Q48lAl6d; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I have btw used the DRI library successfully, in perl, but has anyone done anything in Python? My favorite language at the moment is python, and I have to either use the perl stuff from python, or rewrite the epp pieces I need in Python, or... Patrik From ahmet@mertler.net Tue Dec 30 02:32:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2523B3A67AB; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:32:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -28.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-28.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55OWwoXZN5pM; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-015-183-107.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br (189-015-183-107.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br [189.15.183.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B6223A63D2; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:32:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:31:38 -0500 From: "Aubrey Houser" Subject: Tag Heuer watches wholesale all year long! To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Aubrey, If you've waited to get your Patek Phillipe watch, this is the right time to go for it. http://www.jelljell.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.jelljell.com/ Our Patek Phillipe watches have perfect weight and feel same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Houser From cw@wuhanport.com Tue Dec 30 03:20:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41953A6857; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:20:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.607 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wDEpc7UhwM10; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-53-159-8-ebt.cm.ja.net.br (189-53-159-8-ebt.cm.ja.net.br [189.53.159.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F13E3A6837; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:20:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:19:48 -0500 From: "Nick Santiago" Subject: Patek Phillipe watches wholesale all year long! To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Nick, I had never seen such beautiful and greatly-performing watches like the ones I found online at http://www.clipslim.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.clipslim.com/ Our Patek Phillipe have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Santiago From mccullough@algorithmics.com Tue Dec 30 09:58:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B4D3A67F9 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:58:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.17 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HELO_EQ_NE_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Hi4cO7ZGRIu for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from p6194-ipbfp201gifu.gifu.ocn.ne.jp (p6194-ipbfp201gifu.gifu.ocn.ne.jp [124.103.93.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C1A543A681D for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:58:05 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Real women love big dimensions From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081230175806.C1A543A681D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:58:05 -0800 (PST)


Please do not reply to this email. To contact Armstrong Shank Advertising, please visit us

This email message was sent to . If you do not wish to receive further communications from Armstrong Shank Advertising, click here to unsubscribe.

If you've experience any difficulty in being removed from a Armstrong Shank Advertising email list, click here for personalized help.

Copyright © 2008 Armstrong Shank Advertising, Inc. All rights reserved.
7450 S Seneca, Haysville, KS 67060

Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU89wdp006473 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBU89wE1008518 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU89wYS012024 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0100 (MET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,300,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="29706761" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Dec 2008 08:09:49 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU89nMu003474 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:49 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBU89nD2026241 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:09:49 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] ([10.61.86.54]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:49 +0100 Message-Id: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: EPP Provreg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: [ietf-provreg] epp in python? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:09:46 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2008 08:09:49.0137 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC1E2C10:01C96A55] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=271; t=1230624589; x=1231488589; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20

|Subject:=20epp=20in=20python? |Sender:=20; bh=yp+pivjTgWWUhshhlDnIL1fxiv8vE6WbZYkSoE15z7c=; b=nFw1vCmfvfqV55oajqMQ5dkoiB/shilGdoLoHeesSw8BbZUf9nA1Rlk/u1 gWNiZq2t9KKEvZ/kJ4ngcUfXfLj676sgC+M5sklMHy1xVGsP2RVGb+HnQvnf a/Q48lAl6d; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I have btw used the DRI library successfully, in perl, but has anyone done anything in Python? My favorite language at the moment is python, and I have to either use the perl stuff from python, or rewrite the epp pieces I need in Python, or... Patrik Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU0IniR009576 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBU0InJd004387 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBU0InNi012267 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1492B21; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id iptOtUrWV075; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:47 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413E635; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:47 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (klaus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBU0IjPY000203; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:46 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <495968E0.2090207@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:18:40 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081228 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: liste@publisher.de CC: EPP Provreg Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: References: <200812292332.mBTNWPTV022524@nic.cafax.se> In-Reply-To: <200812292332.mBTNWPTV022524@nic.cafax.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 2008-12-30 00:32, liste@publisher.de wrote: > > Hello, > > my name is Ulrich and I am working for .SE (the Swedish registry). Among > other other things I am responsible for the .SE EPP server. > > During the implementation of our EPP server (and client) I found the > definition to be incomplete. I have no idea if this has > already been discussed on the list? I haven't been able to find it in > the archives. Please feel free to point me to any old discussion if > applicable. > > For only keyTag can be specified. But DNSSec explicitly > defines the keyTag to be *not* unique for a zone. Only algorithm an > dkeyTag together are unique. Besides that it is possible to specify > several DS records for the same key but with diffrent digestTypes.=20 > > Currently due to the low depolyment of DNSSec and due to the fact that > only one algorithm is required in DNSSec this is not really a problem, > but it could become one in the future. > > Here at .SE we currently publish two DS records for every key, one with > digest type SHA-1 and one with digest type SHA-256. (Try dnssec.se) > > My proposal would be to add two optional tags to the tag > > > > > Which would be fully backward compatible, but still allow to be more > precis if needed. > > Kind regards > > Ulrich Hi Ulrich, I discovered this issue back in 2005. I got two answers, one from Scott Hollenbeck, vaguely referring me to some not further specified discussions on the dnsop list and one from Ólafur Guðmundsson. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the latter e-mail in the list archive, so I cannot point to this e-mail, but have to quote it from my personal archive: - - - 8< - - - > * Using the 16 Bit key tag of the key to identify the DS/DNSKEY that > should be removed from the domain is a bit risky having the probability > in mind that more than one key has exactly this tag. DNSSEC never relies > on the uniqueness of this tag. First question: Who gets harmed Answer: Registrant. As the number of DS at any delegation is supposed to be small (<=5) the probability of collision is low, as the keys pointed to by DS are supposed to be strong it is real stupid to have keys that collide. In short this is going to be infrequent if DS set is a replace operation then this is a non issue. A smart registry is perfectly within the protocol bounds by refusing the a DS that conflicts in the key_tag + alg, (or if the digest for two keys of the same alg is the same). - - - 8< - - - Regards, Klaus Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTNWQ8R026052 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:26 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTNWQjA007584 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:26 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from publisher.de (lvps87-230-32-221.dedicated.hosteurope.de [87.230.32.221]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTNWPTV022524 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:25 +0100 (MET) From: liste@publisher.de Message-Id: <200812292332.mBTNWPTV022524@nic.cafax.se> Received: (qmail 17982 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2008 23:32:25 +0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk  Received: from p5b006002.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO ?192.168.2.103?) (91.0.96.2) by lvps87-230-32-221.dedicated.hosteurope.de with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 29 Dec 2008 23:32:24 +0000 Subject: definition From: Ulrich Wisser To: EPP Provreg Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J" Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:31:01 +0100 Message-Id: <1230593461.11548.311.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 --=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, my name is Ulrich and I am working for .SE (the Swedish registry). Among other other things I am responsible for the .SE EPP server. During the implementation of our EPP server (and client) I found the definition to be incomplete. I have no idea if this has already been discussed on the list? I haven't been able to find it in the archives. Please feel free to point me to any old discussion if applicable. For only keyTag can be specified. But DNSSec explicitly defines the keyTag to be *not* unique for a zone. Only algorithm an dkeyTag together are unique. Besides that it is possible to specify several DS records for the same key but with diffrent digestTypes.=20 Currently due to the low depolyment of DNSSec and due to the fact that only one algorithm is required in DNSSec this is not really a problem, but it could become one in the future. Here at .SE we currently publish two DS records for every key, one with digest type SHA-1 and one with digest type SHA-256. (Try dnssec.se) My proposal would be to add two optional tags to the tag Which would be fully backward compatible, but still allow to be more precis if needed. Kind regards Ulrich =20 --=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFYjCCBV4w ggNGoAMCAQICAwO40TANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQL ExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3Jp dHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0wNzA2MjMyMTI5MDdaFw0w OTA2MjIyMTI5MDdaMFExFjAUBgNVBAMTDVVscmljaCBXaXNzZXIxNzA1BgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWKDJj OWM4NWRhMTAzMmRmNDc2NTg5MGZjZWIxZDJmNGNjYTlkMTYxMGMwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCu0E1V+wRtD4Lnqu/NdOxsgNZHc6WvCH9+JMAvVTumjfMB6wIt686F76Mp xC6xCxFno8pvAdOcosnzIErulQ7HFz7Hu75GKNZE8uhp5o1Fx0FbrpkfaGMJTabfXD6liFPSeXt2 E6Hts0HnAbiWqNPoo4Tk6K/I9lIWJr+FlpkHOBNMd2wVm7edwfjzt8wBnMwwFKAGp2CO+4rOdamm WNRKOhUnlhZ88aOnLbvI5bjXHjOQy80TVG/mPBVmEBfcs2Tr5IqWvYvRli0BTsnLReOBudYKo99/ 2i4V9pPncYVa+tprpnqmFlntetzUUJH7HHJzrKaQwvQC0d7XpzerezhxAgMBAAGjggEVMIIBETAM BgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMFYGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQRJFkdUbyBnZXQgeW91ciBvd24gY2VydGlmaWNhdGUg Zm9yIEZSRUUgaGVhZCBvdmVyIHRvIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuQ0FjZXJ0Lm9yZzBABgNVHSUEOTA3Bggr BgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCisGAQQBgjcKAwQGCisGAQQBgjcKAwMGCWCGSAGG+EIEATAyBggr BgEFBQcBAQQmMCQwIgYIKwYBBQUHMAGGFmh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNhY2VydC5vcmcwMwYDVR0RBCww KoEoMmM5Yzg1ZGExMDMyZGY0NzY1ODkwZmNlYjFkMmY0Y2NhOWQxNjEwYzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAgEAiYpAf/5fXWJD1tB7YbZecUy9Ww6Y2y5MwTvIquEP36SuD70yOXOZ8sB2mt7sjuPeFmjw kU2jHyYjmzGUochSk1bpd2VxGtfHKUUxl8BZyJ5UH8oGNHqgKiSXrpxkbSzzboS+7dbrL0va1zMg xdgZS22HWjufwowEVKA/jUfyt8k1A2A7qNhZu8QUCOvH2SpP0dOwzhLmVFirUY/AH+CbvvkNFlJF ocTOtloLFV78pB5M5lYJKcq/LzAHuOJr69mpLp46iZVte3ZqQsdtE/q1H+cvInA7vZs1mDyEIhag RsKsIsDPVnEnzalaTO1cAKySgictdD/krK3KpS2Wdjnrxye8GaDRkHDlcnARQaCVzG+6BeC8MRtw 1POwcq0q7LJSvThfCAiw8DL7ya6+SrjSzKiQNyIDoaXDR6WmXs6/8AI++bFnperuhcoFX1nImLfy QPuff8vGyv05o3d2GkJ8xS4CDHqNxkRQSWNwXYB5zVxipWmfFI9D0r0y3mY202a0JyZd9eVT0yAz dMolC+MqCEpY+q7eBraBdfp5Ds3JYQaWIr+heJGaFSKgfCxYxMeUHK3DVOQZjMN7VBruo2D800+l YKqON6b+ff5EP8qml+W7xMeRY7Qv1vDuIhN3TBVDtHnJS3lc6yN1WEf9toOl+4tfXkczp1d8g6xh jisyn6wxggIHMIICAwIBATCBgDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8v d3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkq hkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDA7jRMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgXTAYBgkqhkiG9w0B CQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wODEyMjkyMzMxMDFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BDEWBBTJ8K3lMYSkNGOw7OQfcdyRld5ptzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQB7Ztt5rRDW6KPkmNse iCT8Xbvl2encdXTbLAIzBDI4NGVSbWfKOoxezgDJHN1RWvJjy3Dh6j+QJ6g7Y1ysHM0EgzuEHfqi fCf6HkvrF6PbBRJHRbIPAVoAVrWrBoHhKtTDLvGTLr38dL8M4qtlRBF57VPTdn+rUKhny1gLr6Ha 7La3PyvXWa0anRo8Zd4RBtDgt8EQkwlrlhcPyvmwmq9igrKz6VQhsoZg6ZqnEPOOBQtgNZtz1JTc UBHrTJkkGcdh3CBthuQulKdVLw2nh9lx8fTbpSx7BQQp85aZ4KXwMtyDU7cjraC011QI+z0dBZ1+ GT15JsTXzGAX5cp5/HlAAAAAAAAA --=-6xtJpR9glNucMLPpIB5J-- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTIAjMf009850 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:10:45 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTIAjWR020515 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:10:45 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTIAjIL028392 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:10:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46AEE2FE97ED for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:10:42 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081229181042.GB30962@shinkuro.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , EPP Provreg References: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:31:24AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: > What do you mean by "the private keys for the two sponsors?" > > Splitting hairs, the signing of DNS information happens after it leaves > the database (of the registry) and before it hits what is currently known > as the DNS (the master server). If a registrant has two operators for > DNS (and many do), the operators are either both offering slave service > or one is slaving off the other. > > IOW, if there are two sources of key-pairs for a domain name, there's > trouble elsewhere. > > Maybe I don't understand the situation you have in mind. Suppose I have RegA and RegB, and a registrant with example.org sponsored by RegA. RegA also happens to be the DNS operator for example.org. Example.org is signed. If the registrant wants to move to RegB, there's a potential problem. RegA operates the DNS, and therefore presumably has the private keys for the current keying material corresponding to the DS record in .org. There are a few possibilities I've thought of (in no particular order): 1. Create new keys, publish them in RegA's DNS and as the DS in the .org DNS, and then use those keys for RegB's DNS as well. This requires the registrant to know something about DNS, I expect, and also requires RegA to present an interface for registrant to send the key information (and RegA may not have such an interface). 2. Get RegA to give the private key data to RegB. This is a bad idea anyway, and anyway I doubt anyone would co-operate with it. 3. Co-ordinate the operation (independently) between RegA and RegB. This requires that every DNSSEC-operating registrar in every registry have some sort of bilateral communication with every other registrar. I doubt this will work. 4. Make it possible for RegB to modify the DNS data of the domain while the domain is pending transfer. This strikes me as a very EPP-like way to do it: the gaining client initiated the transfer, then sends the update command with the new name servers and key data to the registry. The domain is in pendingUpdate _and_ pendingTransfer status until the transfer is approved, at which point the updates automatically happen. If the transfer is refused, then the update fails as well. I _think_ this is compatible with the current RFCs, but I'm not aware of any currently deployed code that works this way. 5. Go through an insecure phase 6. RegB obtains the necessary (public) key data from RegA and publishes all of it in the RegB DNS. By carefully sequencing the addition of additional records and removal of old ones, the domain remains secure the whole time. This can be made to work today, but I think it's a little fragile. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTFVYVT001113 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTFVYCs027569 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:34 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTFVW9D005569 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from [10.31.200.131] (ns.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBTFVUrm096003; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:31:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> References: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:31:24 -0500 To: Andrew Sullivan From: Edward Lewis Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Cc: EPP Provreg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 10.20.30.4 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk At 9:44 -0500 12/29/08, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >There's an additional issue in this area that's troubling to me, which >has to do with domain transfers in a DNSSEC context, particularly in >cases where the private keys for the two sponsors can't be shared >(imagine the case where the two sponsors are each involved in >operating the DNS for the target domain; in this case, they're not >going to share private keys with one another). It seems to me that in >such a case, a sponsor needs to be able to add a DS record to a domain >object when the sponsor doesn't actually own the domain. This is >problematic, because obviously we don't want random others being able >to add properties to the objects one sponsors. It would be possible >to allow this while a transfer is pending, but often there are various >prohibitions on such a domain, and perhaps those will conflict with >the ability of the gaining sponsor to add properties to the >prospectively-transferred domain. Thoughts? What do you mean by "the private keys for the two sponsors?" Splitting hairs, the signing of DNS information happens after it leaves the database (of the registry) and before it hits what is currently known as the DNS (the master server). If a registrant has two operators for DNS (and many do), the operators are either both offering slave service or one is slaving off the other. IOW, if there are two sources of key-pairs for a domain name, there's trouble elsewhere. Maybe I don't understand the situation you have in mind. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTEi70T024729 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBTEi7ZN023000 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:07 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBTEi6m4025973 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:44:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC4E82FE97EF for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:44:04 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081229144403.GA30962@shinkuro.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , EPP Provreg References: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi, On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:35:48PM -0500, Gould, James wrote: > > Overall, I believe that the inability to do both an add and remove > in RFC 4310 is an oversight that should be addressed to be > consistent with the rest of the EPP specifications and to ensure > transactional consistency, but I'm not sure if it is bad enough to > warrant the process to make the change on its own. Based on the > provreg e-mail list it doesn't look like anyone beliefs that it does > warrant a change to RFC 4310 at this point (other than maybe me), so > if there is anyone out there that believes that it does please reply > to the list. I think it does, and I'm willing to work on such changes. I do worry about the operational effects of performing add and remove at the same time: it seems to me to be the sort of thing that could take a domain dark. There's an additional issue in this area that's troubling to me, which has to do with domain transfers in a DNSSEC context, particularly in cases where the private keys for the two sponsors can't be shared (imagine the case where the two sponsors are each involved in operating the DNS for the target domain; in this case, they're not going to share private keys with one another). It seems to me that in such a case, a sponsor needs to be able to add a DS record to a domain object when the sponsor doesn't actually own the domain. This is problematic, because obviously we don't want random others being able to add properties to the objects one sponsors. It would be possible to allow this while a transfer is pending, but often there are various prohibitions on such a domain, and perhaps those will conflict with the ability of the gaining sponsor to add properties to the prospectively-transferred domain. Thoughts? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBSHZsEs008767 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:35:54 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBSHZsR4003663 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:35:54 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBSHZrAg028100 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:35:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBSHUAHr016050; Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:35:49 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:35:48 -0500 Message-ID: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D892858442029A38A6@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclmQP6ikKV4A/5+S56wCNfvoXLfXACzFcjQ From: "Gould, James" To: "Patrick Mevzek" , "EPP Provreg" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2008 17:35:49.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[B964F960:01C96912] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBSHZrAg001758 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrick, My point of transactional consistency does not deal with the difference between managing a list via deltas (add and remove) versus a complete set (chg), but deals with the inability to manage a list effectively with either since RFC 4310 does not allow the DS data to be managed using deltas (add AND remove) or a compete set (chg). Transactional consistency deals with writable operations, where obtaining the current list of name servers, statuses, or contacts from a local datastore or from the Registry is not part of the transaction context. In my opinion splitting updates across three commands (info, transfer, and update) is fine since info is not part of the transaction context, the transfer is simply a request to change sponsorship of the domain, and the final update should set the domain to the desired state once the transfer is completed and the gaining Registrar is authorized to make the change. When managing an individual list attribute, being able to do both an add and remove in a single command will allow the list attribute to have a consistent matching state on the Registry side and in DNS. This seems to me to be simpler and less error prone. As far as extensions go, I believe that the ability to add extensions is one of the key features of EPP considering that "E" stands for extensible. Hopefully the Registries make the extensions as opt ins instead of requirements. Each Registry has different business models that can be supported by extensions, but the base specifications should continue to hold true. For example, for .COM and .NET we received feedback from the Registrars that they needed information in EPP that was only available via Whois to support transfers, so we created an extension that would allow them to request it with an info command. Adding an extension for transfers to do more than change sponsorship when the transfer is completed is not a bad idea as long as its optional. I believe it is a best practice to incrementally add extensions as opt ins to increase the value to the channel, where some extensions are specific to a Registry and some extensions are more cross-cutting and could be considered for a standards track. Overall, I believe that the inability to do both an add and remove in RFC 4310 is an oversight that should be addressed to be consistent with the rest of the EPP specifications and to ensure transactional consistency, but I'm not sure if it is bad enough to warrant the process to make the change on its own. Based on the provreg e-mail list it doesn't look like anyone beliefs that it does warrant a change to RFC 4310 at this point (other than maybe me), so if there is anyone out there that believes that it does please reply to the list. Thanks, JG ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:05 PM To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question James Gould 2008-12-11 18:59 > I disagree with your following paragraph: Ok, I have no strong opinion in either case. For a recap, we have: - ns : add and/or rem - contact : add and/or rem - status : add and/or rem - registrant : chg - authInfo : chg - secDNS : add and/or rem and/or chg > It boils down to a transactional consistency issue. An individual EPP > command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single > database transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either > manages the DS data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the > Registrant to update the DS data, having to manage the updates in > separate commands and subsequently separate transactions is more > complex and will cause transactional inconsistency. But this is already the case elsewere then. For example, for nameservers if you want to *change* them (irrelevant to what they are now) you need to know the current set to be able to do a rem and add the correct set. This is one operation, yes. But how do you know the current set ? Ok, you should be a properly managed registrar and have a local copy of this information. Even then, after a transfer for example, you will need a domain:info before your domain:update, so 2 operations, and even if the domain:info has no side effect there still could happen many things between the two that would create transactional inconsistencies. Also when you speak below about domain transfers currently this means at least three operations: domain:transfer, domain:info to learn the new nameservers/contacts and then domain:update. A lot of inconsistencies can happen there, in part due to the huge number of related parties for such a case (the registry, the current registrar, the new registrar, the registrant or admin contact or someone having pulled the authInfo code from the current registrar to give the new one, maybe the new hosting company (if != new registrar) and the old none (if != old registrar), and even we could imagine the key management authority (if != hosting company), both old and new one... this is like 10 entities for an operation that could be seen - depending on the level of where you sit to view it - as a single operation/transaction ; registrants do view it like that, they do not understand why a "simple" change of "webhosting" company needs participation of so many entities with rules to follow, delays to wait, etc.) So for me, we should be able to have add *or* rem *or* chg for any kind of item, but only one of the three in a given domain:update. > The only way to keep transactional consistency with the desire of a > Registrant that uses a Registrar¹s UI to manage DS data is to have the > UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a combination. I believe I have said the same things when saying: no mix. > There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed > domain is transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer > along with it or does it get cleared. I¹m assuming that it would be > transferred along in a similar model as the name servers. A domain name transfer should have no consequences to the running state of the domain and its resolution. So, as the name servers are preserved during a domain name transfer, all related information such as keys should be preserved too in my mind. Also, in part because of the problem outlined above, some registries have extended EPP to permit the specification of new nameservers and/or contacts when the domain:transfer operation is started, which basically is identical to a domain:transfer + domain:update without fear of consistency issues (and if the domaine:update would allow a domain:ns in the chg node). It can be seen as a delayed/callback system. The registrar asks for a domain:transfer (that may succeed or not, immediately or later on) but ties the success of this operation with some others (change of nameserves, contacts, etc.) while sending everything in one command to the registry that will ensure atomicity over the whole set of changes (either domain:transfer fails without obviously any change or domainl:transfer succeeds with all changes asked for in nameservers, contacts, etc.). > It is up to the gaining Registrar to > update the name servers and DS data assuming that the hosting is > changing along with the transfer. In this case, the gaining Registrar > would have a need to remove the existing name servers, add the new > name servers, and do the same with the DS data. It has a need to *replace* the current set of nameservers with a new set. He should be able to do that without even having to know the current set. Hence the usefulness of the domain:update chg for nameservers (and same for contacts or statuses) or some registries extension to do that during the domain:transfer. > Having this done in separate commands / transactions would result in > DNS getting incremental changes based on the add and remove order > chosen by the Registrar. Again, not a problem with a domain:update chg domain:ns or specifying new nameservers (and key materials but since DNSSEC is not widely deployed it I've not seen it used the same way in an extended domain:transfer) directly into the domain:transfer operation. > It is much cleaner to simply > be able to remove and add in a single command and single transaction, > which will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. It believe it is even cleaner to be able to force a new set without even have to know the previous one. > I don¹t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes > is overly complicated. The RFC could include text that describes some > of the basic rules to ensure there is consistency. That assumes that > all Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your ³EPP : An > implementor experience and recommendations² is doesn¹t look like that is the case. I believe in this case that we are more touching issues not strictly technical. EPP with the current behaviour in domain:update is one point of view, it has merits and drawbacks and other points of view have other merits and other drawbacks. But seeing that some registries did extend it to support other point of view just make me think that domain:update should be made simpler with my 2 points (add or rem or chg for any item, and no mix of any of these 3 in any single domain:update) which would also then accomodate all points of view. I do note that domain:update is a very specific case as due to its nature it is more difficult to properly extend it, and this also created problems in the past (empty domain:update needed or not in case of extensions nodes attached to the command). > In either event, changing the choice to a sequence is backward > compatible, so it should not break current client implementations. > The protocol should address the most common use cases and ensure transactional consistency. I think in a previous message I've tried to gather some use cases that seemed legitimate to me... but it was more a bait than anything else to make registrars let us know what they do most of the times and/or registries pull some statistics on this topic based on their logs :-) With that data from "true" sources, I believe it would be easier to see what are the needs and the use cases. We would of course need to take into account extensions related to this, like I've said above the fact that registries permit specifying nameservers/contacts during a domain:transfer, and seeing how it is used by their registrars. -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBP35JK2005565 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:19 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBP35JpA013293 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:19 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBP35ITs023376 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBP35IAC032569; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:18 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBP35FG4032450; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:15 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:15 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081225030515.GB5462@home.patoche.org> References: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:05:18 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk James Gould 2008-12-11 18:59 > I disagree with your following paragraph: Ok, I have no strong opinion in either case. For a recap, we have: - ns : add and/or rem - contact : add and/or rem - status : add and/or rem - registrant : chg - authInfo : chg - secDNS : add and/or rem and/or chg > It boils down to a transactional consistency issue. An individual EPP > command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single database > transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either manages the DS > data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the Registrant to update the DS > data, having to manage the updates in separate commands and subsequently > separate transactions is more complex and will cause transactional > inconsistency. But this is already the case elsewere then. For example, for nameservers if you want to *change* them (irrelevant to what they are now) you need to know the current set to be able to do a rem and add the correct set. This is one operation, yes. But how do you know the current set ? Ok, you should be a properly managed registrar and have a local copy of this information. Even then, after a transfer for example, you will need a domain:info before your domain:update, so 2 operations, and even if the domain:info has no side effect there still could happen many things between the two that would create transactional inconsistencies. Also when you speak below about domain transfers currently this means at least three operations: domain:transfer, domain:info to learn the new nameservers/contacts and then domain:update. A lot of inconsistencies can happen there, in part due to the huge number of related parties for such a case (the registry, the current registrar, the new registrar, the registrant or admin contact or someone having pulled the authInfo code from the current registrar to give the new one, maybe the new hosting company (if != new registrar) and the old none (if != old registrar), and even we could imagine the key management authority (if != hosting company), both old and new one... this is like 10 entities for an operation that could be seen - depending on the level of where you sit to view it - as a single operation/transaction ; registrants do view it like that, they do not understand why a "simple" change of "webhosting" company needs participation of so many entities with rules to follow, delays to wait, etc.) So for me, we should be able to have add *or* rem *or* chg for any kind of item, but only one of the three in a given domain:update. > The only way to keep transactional consistency with the > desire of a Registrant that uses a Registrar¹s UI to manage DS data is to > have the UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a > combination. I believe I have said the same things when saying: no mix. > There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed domain is > transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer along with it > or does it get cleared. I¹m assuming that it would be transferred along in > a similar model as the name servers. A domain name transfer should have no consequences to the running state of the domain and its resolution. So, as the name servers are preserved during a domain name transfer, all related information such as keys should be preserved too in my mind. Also, in part because of the problem outlined above, some registries have extended EPP to permit the specification of new nameservers and/or contacts when the domain:transfer operation is started, which basically is identical to a domain:transfer + domain:update without fear of consistency issues (and if the domaine:update would allow a domain:ns in the chg node). It can be seen as a delayed/callback system. The registrar asks for a domain:transfer (that may succeed or not, immediately or later on) but ties the success of this operation with some others (change of nameserves, contacts, etc.) while sending everything in one command to the registry that will ensure atomicity over the whole set of changes (either domain:transfer fails without obviously any change or domainl:transfer succeeds with all changes asked for in nameservers, contacts, etc.). > It is up to the gaining Registrar to > update the name servers and DS data assuming that the hosting is changing > along with the transfer. In this case, the gaining Registrar would have a > need to remove the existing name servers, add the new name servers, and do > the same with the DS data. It has a need to *replace* the current set of nameservers with a new set. He should be able to do that without even having to know the current set. Hence the usefulness of the domain:update chg for nameservers (and same for contacts or statuses) or some registries extension to do that during the domain:transfer. > Having this done in separate commands / > transactions would result in DNS getting incremental changes based on the > add and remove order chosen by the Registrar. Again, not a problem with a domain:update chg domain:ns or specifying new nameservers (and key materials but since DNSSEC is not widely deployed it I've not seen it used the same way in an extended domain:transfer) directly into the domain:transfer operation. > It is much cleaner to simply > be able to remove and add in a single command and single transaction, which > will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. It believe it is even cleaner to be able to force a new set without even have to know the previous one. > I don¹t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes is > overly complicated. The RFC could include text that describes some of the > basic rules to ensure there is consistency. That assumes that all > Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your ³EPP : An implementor > experience and recommendations² is doesn¹t look like that is the case. I believe in this case that we are more touching issues not strictly technical. EPP with the current behaviour in domain:update is one point of view, it has merits and drawbacks and other points of view have other merits and other drawbacks. But seeing that some registries did extend it to support other point of view just make me think that domain:update should be made simpler with my 2 points (add or rem or chg for any item, and no mix of any of these 3 in any single domain:update) which would also then accomodate all points of view. I do note that domain:update is a very specific case as due to its nature it is more difficult to properly extend it, and this also created problems in the past (empty domain:update needed or not in case of extensions nodes attached to the command). > In either event, changing the choice to a sequence is backward compatible, so > it should not break current client implementations. The protocol should > address the most common use cases and ensure transactional consistency. I think in a previous message I've tried to gather some use cases that seemed legitimate to me... but it was more a bait than anything else to make registrars let us know what they do most of the times and/or registries pull some statistics on this topic based on their logs :-) With that data from "true" sources, I believe it would be easier to see what are the needs and the use cases. We would of course need to take into account extensions related to this, like I've said above the fact that registries permit specifying nameservers/contacts during a domain:transfer, and seeing how it is used by their registrars. -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMF41XC001661 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBMF415h008784 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMF41QY028466 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 00DFD1C011C; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE7B1C00FD; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E485DA1D9C5; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:04:00 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Patrick Mevzek Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Message-ID: <20081222150400.GA22297@nic.fr> References: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> <20081218164509.GC5635@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081218164509.GC5635@home.patoche.org> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:45:09PM +0100, Patrick Mevzek wrote a message of 52 lines which said: > And as I can see by the very low response to my other thread about > my draft, there does not seem to be a lot of interest among > registries to collaborate, share their experiences, and build things > together. Hold on! I've read it, I was planning to comment on it but it was posted only nine days ago and there were other things to do during this time... Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMEPRBe025029 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:27 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBMEPRna011394 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:27 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMEPQHT020450 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB30A21; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:23 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id BUPH3djRfAAp; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:19 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78224F; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:18 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBMEPH8J020868; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:18 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <494FA34D.1010708@knipp.de> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:17 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081221 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olafur Gudmundsson CC: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> <200812181509.mBIF9Cs5085707@stora.ogud.com> In-Reply-To: <200812181509.mBIF9Cs5085707@stora.ogud.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 18/12/08 16:08, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: >> The DS data is not a separate object, but part of the domain object, >> so there is no question that it shall be transferred along with the >> domain itself. Also it is doubtless that the data MAY NOT be cleared. > > Clearing DS is what you do when child stops using DNSSEC, thus it must > be allowed. > Sure -- I expressed myself unclear. I meant that they should not be cleared as a side effect of transfers, as a transfer not necessarily means that the domain is moved to a new name server operator and/or to a new set of name servers. > > [...] > > The important question that registries need to ask them self is > "Does the DS record in the EPP update the data go into the registry or > does it only go in if/after the child's DNSKEY RRset has a key that > matches the DS record?" A pre-check may reduce the risk of human/machine errors that either make the domain unsigned or suggest the domain being compromised. But it seems to me that it does not improve security in general. Thinking a little bit more of my question after your and Patrick's answers, I have to admit that it is probably not a good idea -- first, the establishment and management of this channel is a problem. If one would not trust the registrar/reseller chain enough, this separate channel could not be created/maintained using their credibility. However, alternative solutions are likely hard to find. Second, name server assignment/host management would need to be moved to the name server operators as well. This sounds like a big responsibility mess. Regards, Klaus Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIHItma029037 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:55 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIHItG9019228 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:55 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIHIswr018404 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBIHIsXQ013244; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:54 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBIHIrLO013243; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:53 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:53 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Message-ID: <20081218171853.GE5635@home.patoche.org> References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07026523E3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:54 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hollenbeck, Scott 2008-12-18 16:16 > If you're asking about overall adoption, I know that it's used by all of > the gTLD operators (it's an ICANN requirement) and many ccTLD operators. > Patrick Mevzek recently reported on recent deployments here: > > http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cair > o-ccnso-techday-200811.html > > Sorry if the URL gets broken across two lines. If that can help, from my software, here are some registries using EPP, sometimes alongside other ancillary protocols, and sometimes still in the process of deploying it (sorry in advance for any error). aero fr re (being currently deployed) ag si (being currently deployed) asia at au be biz br bz cat la cx gs tl ki ms mu nf ht na coop cz eu hn i.3.4.e164.arpa (Infrastructure Enum in Austria) info lc lu me mn mobi name uk no (being currently deployed) nu org pl (over HTTPS) pro pt sc se ch li travel us vc com net cc tv jobs There is also: es (over HTTPS) cn tw im cl ac sh io tm in And I'm sure I've forgotten some... >From the ICANN Caïro meeting I can see that even some "small" ccTLD operator are now interested to provide EPP to their registrars (since most registrars are registering in multiple TLDs, it makes sense for them to consolidate their protocols and so it make sense for a registry to suit them). In short there is a massive move towards EPP (we may already have crossed the top of the curve), and no move in the opposite direction (past critics of EPP, specifically in ccTLDs, have changed their minds or at least agreed to move towards EPP) > > 1. Move RFC 4930-4934 to full standard without change. I am > > willing to attempt this, although it's less likely to pass > > IETF last call than the other options due to the obsolescence > > of some of the normative references. > > > > 2. Republish with only references updated. This will require > > somewhat less use of the RFC 3967 procedures and make improve > > the odds of a successful last call. > > > > 3. Republish with references updated and operational > > clarifications; primarily documenting the TLS practices that > > have been used in practice to interoperate. I recognize > > there is some risk that the new TLS practices text will not > > be correct, which is why I've decided I'm willing to let this > > issue pass for a draft->full advancement. IMHO, the problem > > should have been noticed and fixed when advancing to draft so > > any errata could be applied when advancing to full. We > > missed the window where it was most appropriate to fix that > > sort of problem, so we shouldn't hold advancement hostage > > over the issue, IMHO. I can't promise my the rest of the > > IESG will agree, but that's my opinion. > > > > So the steps to advance are: > > > > A. Provide data for the "significant benefit to the Internet" > > litmus test. > > I'll need to > > defend this before the IESG. Besides the number of TLDs/domain names managed through/with EPP, some quick ideas: - native support for IPv6 in hostnames (was added only late in RRP, see RFC3632) - use of XML hence Unicode hence native support for any kind of IDNs (if the unicode string version need to be passed during the exchange, without any encoding) - support of ENUM provision - support of DNSSEC provision - extensibility to cater for needs of current and future TLDs - standardization on an « EPP authcode » needed for domain name transfers, being adopted by more and more TLDs, this simplifies the life of registrants (the merit of this use can be discussed, but at least it is starting to be uniform in multiple TLDs) > > B. Choose option 1-3, publish revised I-Ds as appropriate C. > > It would be very helpful to provide candidate RFC 3967 text > > for the last call notice. > > > > and I'll take it forward from there. > > I'm open to either option 2 or 3. What do others think? >From an implementor point of view again, TLS is not a problem for EPP deployment, I mean besides just knowing if the registry verify the client certificate and if so which client certificates issuers the registry accept, that it is enough to fullfill RFC4934 (EPP over TCP). It is far more complicated to enable the interoperability on the protocol level, taking into account each registry EPP extensions and various tweaks in namespaces, ordering, result codes, etc. So I would favor option 2, or after that option 3, so that not too much time is used for TLS which is not a big issue for EPP in my mind. -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIGjEgn023746 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIGjEIp013409 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIGjDuR007512 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBIGjDbN000658; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:13 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBIGj9ME000513; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:09 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:09 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Message-ID: <20081218164509.GC5635@home.patoche.org> References: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:13 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Jaap Akkerhuis 2008-12-18 17:24 > I admire your patience over advancing this. > > Yes, this worth some compliments. Count me too. > When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always > mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it. > I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I > have come across use it. > > Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports > measuring this. Other tasks take precedence. > > Yes, and it is too bad that they don't. There is an opportunity to > learn from ech other experience here. And since the registry operators > do have to document and explain these to their registrars anyway, > the extra effort shouldn't be that much, at least, that's what I > think. If I can again share my experience on this as a third party EPP client implementor, some registries are very hostile even in providing their documentation (describing their local EPP extensions). Some explain that their local registrar market is very competitive and they fear to be criticized. However, most of the time the documentation is public or at least can be available upon request (but I did not hear back from .NL for example :-)). As for building their EPP extension it seems that most registry did it in house, and not always putting their own registrars in the loop and working with them. It happens with some registries, but definitively not all of them. As for OT&E access to test interoperability it is almost impossible (there are some nice exceptions) to have one if you are not a registrar in the relevant TLD. Speaking as for myself I would love to test interoperability with all EPP registries, but of course I can't be a registrar in all of them. If anyone has any idea to change that, I sure would like to hear and help. And as I can see by the very low response to my other thread about my draft, there does not seem to be a lot of interest among registries to collaborate, share their experiences, and build things together. I could understand that for gTLDs that would say there are under a competitive market, but I do not understand that at all for ccTLDs. Maybe (probably) I'm not using the correct form and channels to propagate this idea. -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIG43GN014494 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:04:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIG43aJ023687 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:04:03 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.nlnetlabs.nl (bartok.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.50]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIG42n4023959 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:04:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from bartok.nlnetlabs.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bartok.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBIG3v8W033574; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl) Message-Id: <200812181603.mBIG3v8W033574@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> To: Edward Lewis cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:09:09 -0500. Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:57 +0100 From: Jaap Akkerhuis X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bartok.nlnetlabs.nl [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:59 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, MISSING_MID autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bartok.nlnetlabs.nl Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi Scott, I admire your patience over advancing this. Yes, this worth some compliments. When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it. I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I have come across use it. Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports measuring this. Other tasks take precedence. Yes, and it is too bad that they don't. There is an opportunity to learn from ech other experience here. And since the registry operators do have to document and explain these to their registrars anyway, the extra effort shouldn't be that much, at least, that's what I think. Regarding the options - I've never run into any issue with the original spec, I doubt that we have updated anything for quite a while. (We did add DNSSEC extensions and some others, but nothing touching the base.) So I don't have a real opinion on the needed changes. (As in I don't think/know of anything [is] needed.) I'm pretty neutral to the options as well. I always thought that during advancing a document removing (unused) material was not a real problem but changing and or adding material, other then updating references, is close to a no-no, so I would go for the easier one (1 or 2) to keep the processes going. But there are likely people way better versed in IETF process to see what the risk there is for advancing these RFCs. jaap Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIFGKPU003720 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:20 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIFGKg3003320 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:20 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIFGIaX000140 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (ns.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBIFGF9n085772; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:16:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07026523E3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:09:09 -0500 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" From: Edward Lewis Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Cc: , , , , jaap@nlnetlabs.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 10.20.30.4 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I admire your patience over advancing this. NeuStar has been using EPP for a long time, in a lot of ways, and reliably for our domain name registry business. We have even already implemented the DNSSEC extensions and whatever extensions have been needed for our business model. When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it. I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I have come across use it. Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports measuring this. Other tasks take precedence. Regarding the options - I've never run into any issue with the original spec, I doubt that we have updated anything for quite a while. (We did add DNSSEC extensions and some others, but nothing touching the base.) So I don't have a real opinion on the needed changes. (As in I don't think/know of anything [is] needed.) At 8:29 -0500 12/18/08, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM] >> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:58 PM >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org >> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs >> >> Apologies for taking far too long to review this in detail. >> >> I've had several discussions about where to set the bar for >> advancement to full standard status. RFC 2026 does have this >> statement: >> >> A specification for which significant implementation and >> successful operational >> experience has been obtained may be elevated to the >> Internet Standard level. An >> Internet Standard (which may simply be referred to as a >> Standard) is characterized >> by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally >> held belief that the >> specified protocol or service provides significant benefit >> to the Internet community. >> >> I believe the implementation report fully covers the first >> sentence. I would want an answer for the second sentence >> before going forward with this >> -- certainly domain registration is a significant benefit to >> the Internet community, so to answer this question, I'd like >> a rough idea about how often this protocol is used in >> production between vendors for domain registration. Do you >> have any information on that? > >Depends on what you mean by "how often". It's used for several million >transactions per day between VeriSign and registrars managing .com and >.net domains. I don't have direct access to production stats for other >registry operators, so I'd like to ask others to speak up here as >appropriate. > >If you're asking about overall adoption, I know that it's used by all of >the gTLD operators (it's an ICANN requirement) and many ccTLD operators. >Patrick Mevzek recently reported on recent deployments here: > >http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cair >o-ccnso-techday-200811.html > >Sorry if the URL gets broken across two lines. > >> Beyond that, I think the bar should be set very high before >> permitting _changes_ during the advancement from draft to >> full standard. After talking with other parties, I suspect >> that while my concerns about TLS would improve the quality of >> the specification, they are not something I feel the IESG >> should force an author/WG change during this advancement >> (it's something I would strongly favor for republication at >> proposed or draft, however). >> >> I don't feel any of the normative references are >> inappropriate for an RFC >> 3967 downward reference. >> >> 1. Move RFC 4930-4934 to full standard without change. I am >> willing to attempt this, although it's less likely to pass >> IETF last call than the other options due to the obsolescence >> of some of the normative references. >> >> 2. Republish with only references updated. This will require >> somewhat less use of the RFC 3967 procedures and make improve >> the odds of a successful last call. >> >> 3. Republish with references updated and operational >> clarifications; primarily documenting the TLS practices that >> have been used in practice to interoperate. I recognize >> there is some risk that the new TLS practices text will not >> be correct, which is why I've decided I'm willing to let this >> issue pass for a draft->full advancement. IMHO, the problem >> should have been noticed and fixed when advancing to draft so >> any errata could be applied when advancing to full. We >> missed the window where it was most appropriate to fix that >> sort of problem, so we shouldn't hold advancement hostage >> over the issue, IMHO. I can't promise my the rest of the >> IESG will agree, but that's my opinion. >> >> So the steps to advance are: >> >> A. Provide data for the "significant benefit to the Internet" >> litmus test. >> I'll need to >> defend this before the IESG. >> B. Choose option 1-3, publish revised I-Ds as appropriate C. >> It would be very helpful to provide candidate RFC 3967 text >> for the last call notice. >> >> and I'll take it forward from there. > >I'm open to either option 2 or 3. What do others think? > >-Scott- -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIDTOe7010561 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:29:24 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBIDTOhS012416 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:29:24 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBIDTNkE014302 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:29:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBIDNxE7005804; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:24:02 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:19 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:29:13 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A322@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs Thread-Index: AclfOtlcElWE6u1CR+mi3pKU1EQFYgB2Bb4Q References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07026523E3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2008 13:29:19.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[A15481C0:01C96114] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBIDTOkE007871 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:58 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org > Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs > > Apologies for taking far too long to review this in detail. > > I've had several discussions about where to set the bar for > advancement to full standard status. RFC 2026 does have this > statement: > > A specification for which significant implementation and > successful operational > experience has been obtained may be elevated to the > Internet Standard level. An > Internet Standard (which may simply be referred to as a > Standard) is characterized > by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally > held belief that the > specified protocol or service provides significant benefit > to the Internet community. > > I believe the implementation report fully covers the first > sentence. I would want an answer for the second sentence > before going forward with this > -- certainly domain registration is a significant benefit to > the Internet community, so to answer this question, I'd like > a rough idea about how often this protocol is used in > production between vendors for domain registration. Do you > have any information on that? Depends on what you mean by "how often". It's used for several million transactions per day between VeriSign and registrars managing .com and .net domains. I don't have direct access to production stats for other registry operators, so I'd like to ask others to speak up here as appropriate. If you're asking about overall adoption, I know that it's used by all of the gTLD operators (it's an ICANN requirement) and many ccTLD operators. Patrick Mevzek recently reported on recent deployments here: http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cair o-ccnso-techday-200811.html Sorry if the URL gets broken across two lines. > Beyond that, I think the bar should be set very high before > permitting _changes_ during the advancement from draft to > full standard. After talking with other parties, I suspect > that while my concerns about TLS would improve the quality of > the specification, they are not something I feel the IESG > should force an author/WG change during this advancement > (it's something I would strongly favor for republication at > proposed or draft, however). > > I don't feel any of the normative references are > inappropriate for an RFC > 3967 downward reference. > > 1. Move RFC 4930-4934 to full standard without change. I am > willing to attempt this, although it's less likely to pass > IETF last call than the other options due to the obsolescence > of some of the normative references. > > 2. Republish with only references updated. This will require > somewhat less use of the RFC 3967 procedures and make improve > the odds of a successful last call. > > 3. Republish with references updated and operational > clarifications; primarily documenting the TLS practices that > have been used in practice to interoperate. I recognize > there is some risk that the new TLS practices text will not > be correct, which is why I've decided I'm willing to let this > issue pass for a draft->full advancement. IMHO, the problem > should have been noticed and fixed when advancing to draft so > any errata could be applied when advancing to full. We > missed the window where it was most appropriate to fix that > sort of problem, so we shouldn't hold advancement hostage > over the issue, IMHO. I can't promise my the rest of the > IESG will agree, but that's my opinion. > > So the steps to advance are: > > A. Provide data for the "significant benefit to the Internet" > litmus test. > I'll need to > defend this before the IESG. > B. Choose option 1-3, publish revised I-Ds as appropriate C. > It would be very helpful to provide candidate RFC 3967 text > for the last call notice. > > and I'll take it forward from there. I'm open to either option 2 or 3. What do others think? -Scott- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9qvOw001606 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:57 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBC9qvK2025868 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:57 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9qu9o014382 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:56 +0100 (MET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,210,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="28434267" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2008 09:52:56 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9quuo001270; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:56 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBC9quYO020044; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:52:56 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:55 +0100 Received: from [192.165.72.13] ([10.61.82.101]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:44 +0100 Cc: James Gould , Patrick Mevzek , EPP Provreg Message-Id: <4022C8B5-9749-458E-A774-49A5BFA0EBC6@cisco.com> From: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Klaus Malorny In-Reply-To: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52:44 +0100 References: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2008 09:52:44.0842 (UTC) FILETIME=[61B078A0:01C95C3F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=757; t=1229075576; x=1229939576; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-provreg]=20DNSSEC=20EPP=20Extensi on=20(RFC=204310)=20Usability=20Question |Sender:=20; bh=RZUEml3aDtYcBwaAKF3hPSlsxdnAR2t3Fa55JIozpZg=; b=sPYBVXe4dlaWDuMePaenv+M7rbMPXjsIQABywsw2cBVzQkvshBxErtsAaN hYcHJD0tZFyXjdv0cIqWPY6NCelxL8X2iwVHVoSX7t7Giz0/ulaoU0nNnKcV cnn5kCxSBQ; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12 dec 2008, at 10.23, Klaus Malorny wrote: > Shouldn't the name server operator get a separate out-of-the-band > channel to the registry operator to submit the DS data directly, for > example with a subset of RFC 4931/RFC 4310? Any comments on this? My immediate reaction is "no". There is the same attack vector as changes in NS records or glue. I think the DS data should definitely follow the same path as other domain related data. That said, the registry can easily do some checks and balances calculation when the data arrive -- before the zone is published. Just like they can check glue, that servers are auth etc, they can also check the KSK in the child zone that it matches the DS passed to them. Patrik Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9NTeR010423 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:29 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBC9NTvk019110 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:29 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC9NSDr026925 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AC24E; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:28 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id xhViE0H+y8tV; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:26 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8055935; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:26 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBC9NP1g025809; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:25 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <49422D8D.50106@knipp.de> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:23:25 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081210 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Gould CC: Patrick Mevzek , EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBC9NTDr009039 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12/11/2008 03:59 PM, James Gould wrote: > [...] > > There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed domain > is transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer along > with it or does it get cleared. I’m assuming that it would be > transferred along in a similar model as the name servers. It is up to > the gaining Registrar to update the name servers and DS data assuming > that the hosting is changing along with the transfer. > [...] The DS data is not a separate object, but part of the domain object, so there is no question that it shall be transferred along with the domain itself. Also it is doubtless that the data MAY NOT be cleared. But this brings me to another question which I have already discussed with various people, but with no real satisfying answer yet. Maybe this list is not the right place for this question neither, but does the management of the DS data via the whole reseller-registrar chain suffice the security needs of the DNSSEC infrastructure? As the name server operator is not necessarily even in this chain, there could be weak links, attack vectors that could void the security gained by the DNSSEC protocol itself. Shouldn't the name server operator get a separate out-of-the-band channel to the registry operator to submit the DS data directly, for example with a subset of RFC 4931/RFC 4310? Any comments on this? Regards, Klaus Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC90AX6007578 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBC90AAC021993 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBC90Anl010252 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5BB82; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:09 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id KZD8LKJVKu+n; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:07 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8952580; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:07 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBC906VU023247; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:07 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <49422816.6020002@knipp.de> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:00:06 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081210 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Gould CC: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mBC90Anl017892 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12/11/2008 03:25 PM, James Gould wrote: > Klaus, > > Your two statements “The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle > this in the same way, > i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections > within one > request, otherwise the request would fail” and “Although I don't think > there is a > need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs > should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible” are sort > of conflicting. > > RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and > chg in a single command. The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow > a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema > validation enabled, which in our case we do. Do you see a need to change > the XML schema? > > -- > Hi James, as I am in favour of not increasing the protocol entropy without a real need(*), I would not update RFC 4310 just for this reason. This is not a limitation one cannot live with. If there would be a major overhaul of this RFC, one could consider to change the to a though, as this is backward compatible. Regards, Klaus * We still struggle with various pre-EPP-1.0 and other strange EPP (-like) implementations. Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBF0A8K024849 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBBF0Acm023191 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBF08Aa008622 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBBEt2Pm021062; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:55:02 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:00:07 -0500 Received: from 10.131.29.236 ([10.131.29.236]) by dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:00:07 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:59:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question From: James Gould To: Patrick Mevzek , EPP Provreg Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaaL5v9kA3UreLQhWXXa+gzwTKvwBOFy1R In-Reply-To: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3311834390_9942303" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2008 15:00:07.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[28353E10:01C95BA1] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3311834390_9942303 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Patrick, I disagree with your following paragraph: For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher API. It boils down to a transactional consistency issue. An individual EPP command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single database transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either manages the DS data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the Registrant to update the D= S data, having to manage the updates in separate commands and subsequently separate transactions is more complex and will cause transactional inconsistency. The only way to keep transactional consistency with the desire of a Registrant that uses a Registrar=B9s UI to manage DS data is to have the UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a combination. I personally have never seen a UI that manages a list in this manor.=20 There is also the issue of transfers. What happens when a signed domain is transferred to another Registrar? Does the DS data transfer along with it or does it get cleared. I=B9m assuming that it would be transferred along in a similar model as the name servers. It is up to the gaining Registrar to update the name servers and DS data assuming that the hosting is changing along with the transfer. In this case, the gaining Registrar would have a need to remove the existing name servers, add the new name servers, and do the same with the DS data. Having this done in separate commands / transactions would result in DNS getting incremental changes based on the add and remove order chosen by the Registrar. It is much cleaner to simply be able to remove and add in a single command and single transaction, which will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. I don=B9t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes is overly complicated. The RFC could include text that describes some of the basic rules to ensure there is consistency. That assumes that all Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your =B3EPP : An implementor experience and recommendations=B2 is doesn=B9t look like that is the case. In either event, changing the choice to a sequence is backward compatible, so it should not break current client implementations. The protocol should address the most common use cases and ensure transactional consistency. --=20 JG=20 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior writte= n consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Patrick Mevzek Organization: Dot And Co Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:16:41 -0500 To: EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question James Gould 2008-12-09 18:29 > In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability > issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations= of > the extension.=20 > > The specification allows adding (), removing (), = and > changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can= =B9t > be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the > : As others have said I think the whole "issue" is the same for all update operations on various objects, not only DNSkey materials. I think that by allowing more flexibility with all operations possible at the same time, it only create confusion with no big benefit at the end. Specifically, I think the most frequent use case for DNS material would be to add *OR* remove a key, and not at the same time if we are after smooth transitions. Change of a key detail may be useful but should not happen too often in practice. So having only either one add or one chg or one rem block in a domain:update for DNSkey material seem fine to me, and I would not be in favor of mixing. I also observe (without hard numbers) that use cases depend on object types. I would say that for status values it seems more logical to have mainly add and rem operations (and again probably very few with add and rem together in a single call), where for nameservers the chg operation may be more frequent (even if not possible by core EPP RFCs, it is done by some registries). As for contact, I would say that it derives a lot from the fact that very few registries seem to allow really multiple contacts of the same type, and if they do I think very few registrars use that feature. Hence in that case add or rem operations are probably the more logical one for contacts during domain update. For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher API. I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow *only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all 3 ... which create even more confusion. -- Patrick Mevzek --B_3311834390_9942303 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Questio= n Patrick,

I disagree with your following paragraph:

For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry
side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about
what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info
(otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will
be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in
other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes
last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they
just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the
following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this
can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher
API.

It boils down to a transactional consistency issue.  An individual EPP= command is one unit of work and is typically executed as a single database = transaction on the Registry side, so when a Registrar either manages the DS = data for the Registrant or provides a UI for the Registrant to update the DS= data, having to manage the updates in separate commands and subsequently se= parate transactions is more complex and will cause transactional inconsisten= cy.  The only way to keep transactional consistency with the desire of = a Registrant that uses a Registrar’s UI to manage DS data is to have t= he UI only allow either an add, remove, or change, but not a combination. &n= bsp;I personally have never seen a UI that manages a list in this manor.
There is also the issue of transfers.  What happens when a signed doma= in is transferred to another Registrar?  Does the DS data transfer alon= g with it or does it get cleared.  I’m assuming that it would be = transferred along in a similar model as the name servers.  It is up to = the gaining Registrar to update the name servers and DS data assuming that t= he hosting is changing along with the transfer.  In this case, the gain= ing Registrar would have a need to remove the existing name servers, add the= new name servers, and do the same with the DS data.  Having this done = in separate commands / transactions would result in DNS getting incremental = changes based on the add and remove order chosen by the Registrar.  It = is much cleaner to simply be able to remove and add in a single command and = single transaction, which will result in one unit of work for DNS updates. &= nbsp;

I don’t believe managing a list with delta adds, removes, and changes= is overly complicated.  The RFC could include text that describes some= of the basic rules to ensure there is consistency.  That assumes that = all Registries fully follow the RFC, which based on your “EPP : An imp= lementor experience and recommendations” is doesn’t look like th= at is the case.   In either event, changing the choice to a sequen= ce is backward compatible, so it should not break current client implementat= ions.  The protocol should address the most common use cases and ensure= transactional consistency.   

--


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, propriet= ary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the reci= pient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed with= out the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Service= s.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please = notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy= the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.


From: Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>
Organization: Dot And Co
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:16:41 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@caf= ax.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usabilit= y Question

James Gould <jgould@verisign.com> 2= 008-12-09 18:29
> In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usabili= ty
> issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementati= ons of
> the extension.
>
> The specification allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<se= cDNS:rem>), and
> changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XML schema= they can’t
> be done at the same time.  Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema = for the
> <secDNS:update>:

As others have said I think the whole "issue" is the same for all=
update operations on various objects, not only DNSkey materials.

I think that by allowing more flexibility with all operations
possible at the same time, it only create confusion with no big
benefit at the end.

Specifically, I think the most frequent use case for DNS material
would be to add *OR* remove a key, and not at the same time if we are
after smooth transitions.
Change of a key detail may be useful but should not happen too often
in practice.

So having only either one add or one chg or one rem block in a
domain:update for DNSkey material seem fine to me, and I would not be
in favor of mixing.

I also observe (without hard numbers) that use cases depend on object
types.
I would say that for status values it seems more logical to have
mainly add and rem operations (and again probably very few with add
and rem together in a single call), where for nameservers the chg
operation may be more frequent (even if not possible by core EPP
RFCs, it is done by some registries).
As for contact, I would say that it derives a lot from the fact that
very few registries seem to allow really multiple contacts of the
same type, and if they do I think very few registrars use that
feature. Hence in that case add or rem operations are probably the
more logical one for contacts during domain update.

For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry
side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about
what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info
(otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will
be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in
other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes
last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they
just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the
following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this
can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher
API.

I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow
*only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all
3 ... which create even more confusion.

--
Patrick Mevzek

 --B_3311834390_9942303-- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBEPLxW021792 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:21 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBBEPLhG018150 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:21 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBEPJmX020466 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBBEKonA029514; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:20:51 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:25:18 -0500 Received: from 10.131.29.236 ([10.131.29.236]) by dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:25:17 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:25:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question From: James Gould To: Klaus Malorny , "Hollenbeck, Scott" CC: EPP Provreg Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaQ+wcpoffmQ7CTi2wzHl9F3F5twBWFmjD In-Reply-To: <493EE0FC.5080409@knipp.de> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3311832314_9790664" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2008 14:25:18.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AF70BE0:01C95B9C] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3311832314_9790664 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Klaus, Your two statements =B3The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same way, i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within one request, otherwise the request would fail=B2 and =B3Although I don't think ther= e is a need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible=B2 are sort of conflicting. =20 RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and chg in a single command. The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema validation enabled, which in our case we do. Do you see a need to change the XML schema? =20 --=20 JG=20 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior writte= n consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Klaus Malorny Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:19:56 -0500 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" Cc: James Gould , EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question On 2008-12-09 20:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same > status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in > which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It can > either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change > (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the > protocol should prevent. > > -Scott- > Hi Scott, being nitpicky, adding and removing the same status value in one request is actually undefined, since the status value not only consists of its name, but of a human readable text also. So if there is a status put on hold because of name infringement and I submit an update request containing put on hold because of excessive spamming what shall the result be? It is undefined to which of the two (the existing or added status value) the removal applies to and which shall survive. For that reason, our EPP implementation generally disallows the addition an= d deletion of the very same name server/status/IP address or whatever in one request. The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same way, i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within one request, otherwise the request would fail. Although I don't think there is = a need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible. I just want t= o remind of the issue in RFC 3731, where the requirement of the domain:update request to have at least one , or element caused either headaches or protocol bending in the context of EPP extensions (fortunately= , this was later fixed in RFC 4931). Regards, Klaus --B_3311832314_9790664 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Questio= n Klaus,

Your two statements “The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle= this in the same way,
i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within = one
request, otherwise the request would fail” and “Although I don'= t think there is a
need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs<= BR> should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible” are sor= t of conflicting.  

RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and chg= in a single command.  The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow = a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema vali= dation enabled, which in our case we do.  Do you see a need to change t= he XML schema?          

--


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, propriet= ary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the reci= pient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed with= out the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Service= s.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please = notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy= the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.


From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:19:56 -0500
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: James Gould <jgould@verisign.co= m>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafa= x.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usabilit= y Question

On 2008-12-09 20:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same=
> status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in > which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It c= an
> either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change<= BR> > (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the<= BR> > protocol should prevent.
>
> -Scott-
>


Hi Scott,

being nitpicky, adding and removing the same status value in one request is=
actually undefined, since the status value not only consists of its name, b= ut of
a human readable text also. So if there is a status

   <status s=3D"serverHold">put on hold becaus= e of name infringement</status>

and I submit an update request containing

   <add>
     <status s=3D"serverHold">put on= hold because of excessive spamming</status>
   <add>
   <rem>
     <status s=3D"serverHold"/>
   </rem>

what shall the result be? It is undefined to which of the two (the existing= or
added status value) the removal applies to and which shall survive.

For that reason, our EPP implementation generally disallows the addition an= d
deletion of the very same name server/status/IP address or whatever in one<= BR> request. The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same = way,
i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within = one
request, otherwise the request would fail. Although I don't think there is = a
need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs<= BR> should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible. I just want t= o
remind of the issue in RFC 3731, where the requirement of the domain:update=
request to have at least one <add>, <rem> or <chg> elemen= t caused either
headaches or protocol bending in the context of EPP extensions (fortunately= ,
this was later fixed in RFC 4931).

Regards,

Klaus



 --B_3311832314_9790664-- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA8jhDq003476 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBA8jhXS020710 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA8jhKx028863 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F244D52; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:42 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id XQJGmh9dbV-z; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:39 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA6566; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:17 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBA8hGpF020157; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:16 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <493F8124.9010908@knipp.de> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:16 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081208 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick Mevzek CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> In-Reply-To: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 12/10/2008 02:16 AM, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry > side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about > what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info > (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will > be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in > other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes > last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they > just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the > following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this > can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher > API. > > I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow > *only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all > 3 ... which create even more confusion. > Just my two cents: I personally want to have as few calls as possible, so I like being able to do additions and removals at the same time. Generally speaking, the design question is whether the "add/remove" approach is the preferable solution, or whether it is better to choose a "replace all" approach, especially, as the number of items (status values, contact reference, IP addresses etc.) are rather small. So a client side application would either determine the desired state from its own storage and submit it to the registry or would query the current state from the registry, alter the state at its own discretion and submit it as a whole to the registry. Our experience with such an approach in other protocols is rather good, although we discovered the need to select which part of the data shall be updated. If one only wants to change the name servers of a domain but not the contacts, it could be regarded as a burden if the submission of the contact data would be also required. Regards, Klaus Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA1GgWi002313 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:42 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBA1Ggsr009785 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:42 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA1GgPX011773 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBA1GfQw009867; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBA1GfGl009866; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Message-ID: <20081210011641.GG10648@home.patoche.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:16:41 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk James Gould 2008-12-09 18:29 > In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability > issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of > the extension. > > The specification allows adding (), removing (), and > changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can¹t > be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the > : As others have said I think the whole "issue" is the same for all update operations on various objects, not only DNSkey materials. I think that by allowing more flexibility with all operations possible at the same time, it only create confusion with no big benefit at the end. Specifically, I think the most frequent use case for DNS material would be to add *OR* remove a key, and not at the same time if we are after smooth transitions. Change of a key detail may be useful but should not happen too often in practice. So having only either one add or one chg or one rem block in a domain:update for DNSkey material seem fine to me, and I would not be in favor of mixing. I also observe (without hard numbers) that use cases depend on object types. I would say that for status values it seems more logical to have mainly add and rem operations (and again probably very few with add and rem together in a single call), where for nameservers the chg operation may be more frequent (even if not possible by core EPP RFCs, it is done by some registries). As for contact, I would say that it derives a lot from the fact that very few registries seem to allow really multiple contacts of the same type, and if they do I think very few registrars use that feature. Hence in that case add or rem operations are probably the more logical one for contacts during domain update. For me, no mix at all would be the simpler case, both on registry side and registrar side: that way there is nothing to think about what will happen if we do add+rem at the same type for the same info (otherwise it depends on registry policies and in some case it will be a noop as add+rem will be seen as opposite, where sometimes in other registries or other cases it will be a removal since it comes last), and registrars still have all power to do what they want, they just, if really needed, do multiple domain:update calls one after the following and each one with either an add, a rem or a chg. And this can be encapsulated on their side as a global operation in an higher API. I also observe that, for the same object types, some registries allow *only* chg, others allow *only* add and/or rem and some allow all 3 ... which create even more confusion. -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA0iSDh023106 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:28 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mBA0iS2a028487 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:28 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA0iRoS009330 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBA0iQhj032541; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:26 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mBA0iPqH032540; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:25 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:25 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Draft about client side implementation experiences Message-ID: <20081210004425.GF10648@home.patoche.org> References: <20081209183819.GE10648@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20081209183819.GE10648@home.patoche.org> Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:44:26 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrick Mevzek 2008-12-09 19:46 > I would like to give you notice of a draft I've written with my > experiences as implementor of EPP client side, and specifically on > many extensions done by registries now switching over to EPP. > > The document is available here for now: > http://www.deepcore.org/ietf/draft-mevzek-epp-implementor-experience-00.txt I forgot to mention that the presentation I've done in ICANN Caïro ccNSO technical day meeting may be useful, at least the first part dealing with EPP, its deployment, and various local registry extensions. You can see an outline of it at http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cairo-ccnso-techday-200811.pdf Presentation itself at http://www.dotandco.com/services/software/Net-DRI/docs/netdri-icann-cairo-ccnso-techday-200811.html (needs Javascript, as it is done with S5) -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9NHpUV011233 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:51 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9NHpIs013196 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:51 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9NHofP015248 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:51 +0100 (MET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,743,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="28160687" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2008 23:17:50 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9NHohQ017672; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:50 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB9NHodu012338; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:17:50 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:50 +0100 Received: from host-78-64-7-95.homerun.telia.com ([10.61.80.201]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:49 +0100 Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Message-Id: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: "Gould, James" In-Reply-To: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:48 +0100 References: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 23:17:49.0680 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A608F00:01C95A54] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4447; t=1228864670; x=1229728670; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paf@cisco.com; z=From:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m?=3D=20

|Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-provreg]=20DNSSEC=20EPP=20Extensi on=20(RFC=204310)=20Usability=20Question |Sender:=20; bh=A/wjdf1OzQ1EBEKBsTKY2GH7LD9o1CXtFBkWPM8q/Pc=; b=SsQj1U+u/y4zIy0JjE9qux1sNLHOjHKQUF55yV5T2Oy7//J+JuEpbSkccv nKdHr+G/mdzfwWIO7ZkgvXmrq5frH3Hm72MasKh5bu9EUSxBAuMxHlvOnyjX LMQX8czxL9; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=paf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id mB9NHpfP015205 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 9 dec 2008, at 18.56, Gould, James wrote: > Scott, > > I believe that would be up to the server policy to define the mix of > updates that are valid. The protocol could support a mix unless > there is some specific reason why it shouldn't. A similar use case > could apply to the domain mapping where an update includes an add > and remove of the same status or name server. > In Sweden I have either done just add and remove. Never mixed. That seems to me be a possible source for confusion. Patrik > > > Jim > James F. Gould > > Pricipal Software Engineer > VeriSign Inc. > > > From: Hollenbeck, Scott > To: Gould, James; ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Sent: Tue Dec 09 12:49:04 2008 > Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) > Usability Question > > Jim, I think I might have just remembered a use case that makes the > a problem. Imagine if it were possible to create a > command that looks like this: > > xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0" > xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0 > secDNS-1.0.xsd"> > > 12345 > > > > 12345 > 3 > 1 > 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC > > > > > Is the server supposed to remove or change the data associated with > keyTag 12345? With the existing schema there's no ambiguity. > -Scott- > > > > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf- > provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James Gould > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 PM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability > Question > > In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one > usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing > implementations of the extension. > > The specification allows adding (), removing > (), and changing () DS data, but according > to the XML schema they can’t be done at the same time. Below is > from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : > > > > > > > > > > > To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model > in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be > used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition > of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: > > > > > > > > > > > Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? > > -- > > > JG > > ------------------------------------------------------- > James F. Gould > Principal Software Engineer > VeriSign Naming Services > jgould@verisign.com > Direct: 703.948.3271 > Mobile: 703.628.7063 > > > 21345 Ridgetop Circle > LS2-2-1 > Dulles, VA 20166 > > Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary > and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the > recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or > disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and > Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in > error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e- > mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank > you. Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9LK8ta018509 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:08 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9LK82r012521 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:08 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3a-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.83]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9LK73O010461 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839D866; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:07 +0100 (MEZ) X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id 0LYbSF0nKxPN; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:05 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6396A65; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:05 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (klaus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August,2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mB9LK432004695; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:20:04 +0100 (MEZ) Message-ID: <493EE0FC.5080409@knipp.de> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:19:56 +0100 From: Klaus Malorny User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081204 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" CC: "Gould, James" , ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question References: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC612@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC612@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On 2008-12-09 20:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same > status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in > which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It can > either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change > (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the > protocol should prevent. > > -Scott- > Hi Scott, being nitpicky, adding and removing the same status value in one request is actually undefined, since the status value not only consists of its name, but of a human readable text also. So if there is a status put on hold because of name infringement and I submit an update request containing put on hold because of excessive spamming what shall the result be? It is undefined to which of the two (the existing or added status value) the removal applies to and which shall survive. For that reason, our EPP implementation generally disallows the addition and deletion of the very same name server/status/IP address or whatever in one request. The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle this in the same way, i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections within one request, otherwise the request would fail. Although I don't think there is a need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible. I just want to remind of the issue in RFC 3731, where the requirement of the domain:update request to have at least one , or element caused either headaches or protocol bending in the context of EPP extensions (fortunately, this was later fixed in RFC 4931). Regards, Klaus Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9J7ZlE019543 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:07:35 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9J7ZMZ029319 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:07:35 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9J7X5X017537 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:07:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9J2VAm001834 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:02:31 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:07:33 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:07:35 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC612@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQABR6+gAACJP9UAAl580A== References: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Gould, James" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 19:07:33.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[63CEE2D0:01C95A31] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, but there's a significant difference: adding and removing the same status or name server produces no change in end state. The order in which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command significant. It can either produce an error (remove followed by change) or a state change (change followed by remove). That seems like a bad situation that the protocol should prevent. -Scott-=20 =20 ________________________________ From: Gould, James=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:56 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question =09 =09 Scott, =09 I believe that would be up to the server policy to define the mix of updates that are valid. The protocol could support a mix unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't. A similar use case could apply to the domain mapping where an update includes an add and remove of the same status or name server. =09 Jim=20 James F. Gould=20 =09 Pricipal Software Engineer=20 VeriSign Inc. =09 ________________________________ From: Hollenbeck, Scott=20 To: Gould, James; ietf-provreg@cafax.se=20 Sent: Tue Dec 09 12:49:04 2008 Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question=20 =09 =09 Jim, I think I might have just remembered a use case that makes the a problem. Imagine if it were possible to create a command that looks like this: =20 12345 12345 3 1 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC =20 Is the server supposed to remove or change the data associated with keyTag 12345? With the existing schema there's no ambiguity. -Scott-=20 =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James Gould Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question =09 =09 In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of the extension. =20 =09 The specification allows adding (), removing (), and changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can't be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : =09 =09 To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: =09 =09 Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? =20 =09 --=20 =09 =09 JG=20 =09 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =09 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 =09 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability = Question

Ah, but there's a significant difference: = adding and=20 removing the same status or name server produces no change in end = state. =20 The order in which a keyTag is changed and removed in one command=20 significant.  It can either produce an error (remove followed by = change) or=20 a state change (change followed by remove).  That seems like a bad=20 situation that the protocol should prevent.

-Scott-

 

From: Gould, James =
Sent: Tuesday,=20 December 09, 2008 12:56 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott;=20 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC = EPP=20 Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question

Scott,

I believe = that would be up=20 to the server policy to define the mix of updates that are valid. The = protocol=20 could support a mix unless there is some specific reason why it = shouldn't. A=20 similar use case could apply to the domain mapping where an update = includes an=20 add and remove of the same status or name server.

Jim
James = F.=20 Gould

Pricipal Software Engineer
VeriSign Inc.

From: Hollenbeck, Scott =
To: Gould,=20 James; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Sent: = Tue Dec=20 09 12:49:04 2008
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP = Extension=20 (RFC 4310) Usability Question

Jim, I think I might = have just=20 remembered a use case that makes the <sequence> a = problem. =20 Imagine if it were possible to create a = command that=20 looks like this:
 
<secDNS:update
  =20 xmlns:secDNS=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0"
  =20 xsi:schemaLocation=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0=20 secDNS-1.0.xsd">
  =20 <secDNS:rem>
    =20 <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
  =20 </secDNS:rem>
  =20 <secDNS:chg>
    =20 <secDNS:dsData>
      =20 = <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
   &nb= sp;   <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
 &nbs= p;    =20 = <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
   = ;   =20 = <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
 =    =20 </secDNS:dsData>
   = </secDNS:chg>
</secDNS:update>
 
Is the server supposed = to remove or=20 change the data associated with keyTag 12345?  With the existing = schema=20 there's no ambiguity.

-Scott-

 

From: = owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James=20 Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 = PM
To:=20 ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP = Extension=20 (RFC 4310) Usability Question

In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC = 4310) I=20 noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from = the=20 existing implementations of the extension.  

The = specification=20 allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<secDNS:rem>), = and=20 changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XML = schema they=20 can’t be done at the same time.  Below is from the RFC = 4210 XML schema=20 for the <secDNS:update>:

    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <cho= ice>
        <elemen= t=20 name=3D"add"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"chg"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"rem"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:remType"/>
      &l= t;/choice>
      <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

To allow for a mix of add, chg, and = rem, should=20 the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML = schema=20 definition be used?  I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to = match the=20 definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, = and=20 rem:

  =20    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <seq= uence>
        <elem= ent=20 name=3D"add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
      </sequence>
=       <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

Has any of the current implementations = come=20 across this issue?  

--=20


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
= James F. = Gould
Principal=20 Software Engineer
VeriSign = Naming=20 Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct:=20 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 = Ridgetop=20 Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:=20  This = e-mail=20 contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry  Sensitive=20 information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be=20  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior = written=20 consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If = you=20 have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify the = sender=20 immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the = original=20 message without making a  copy.  Thank=20 you.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A31.6359C406-- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9IcKmS011366 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:20 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9IcKwx014588 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:20 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (triglav.dotandco.com [194.242.114.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9IcKfU023588 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from triglav.dotandco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mB9IcJgg001162 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by triglav.dotandco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id mB9IcJ1X001161 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: triglav.dotandco.com: patrick set sender to provreg@contact.dotandco.com using -f Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 From: Patrick Mevzek To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] Draft about client side implementation experiences Message-ID: <20081209183819.GE10648@home.patoche.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: Dot And Co User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (triglav.dotandco.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:38:19 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk (Sorry if you get multiple versions of this announcement, I seem to trigger some mailing-list server rules working against me) Hello, I hope the time for this is right. I would like to give you notice of a draft I've written with my experiences as implementor of EPP client side, and specifically on many extensions done by registries now switching over to EPP. The document is available here for now: http://www.deepcore.org/ietf/draft-mevzek-epp-implementor-experience-00.txt If anyone thinks this work is useful and should be pursued, I will work more on it to polish it, add all references and so on at which time all suggestions would be welcome, including on structure since that would be my first I-D. For now, I'm more expecting general comments, here or in private, if the timeframe as well as the structure and objectives of this document are right or not. Thanks in avance for your possible review and feedback. -- Patrick Mevzek Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9HuM86020357 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:56:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9HuMli008354 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:56:22 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9HuLet029628 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:56:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.139]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9HpI35031152 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:51:18 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:56:20 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE" Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:56:19 -0500 Message-ID: <27799D3A07C9EC43910872D89285844202952AEB@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQABR6+gAACJP9U= From: "Gould, James" To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:56:20.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[71192EF0:01C95A27] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 U2NvdHQsDQoNCkkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHVwIHRvIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIgcG9saWN5 IHRvIGRlZmluZSB0aGUgbWl4IG9mIHVwZGF0ZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgdmFsaWQuIFRoZSBwcm90b2Nv bCBjb3VsZCBzdXBwb3J0IGEgbWl4IHVubGVzcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBzb21lIHNwZWNpZmljIHJlYXNv biB3aHkgaXQgc2hvdWxkbid0LiBBIHNpbWlsYXIgdXNlIGNhc2UgY291bGQgYXBwbHkgdG8gdGhl IGRvbWFpbiBtYXBwaW5nIHdoZXJlIGFuIHVwZGF0ZSBpbmNsdWRlcyBhbiBhZGQgYW5kIHJlbW92 ZSBvZiB0aGUgc2FtZSBzdGF0dXMgb3IgbmFtZSBzZXJ2ZXIuDQoNCkppbSANCkphbWVzIEYuIEdv dWxkIA0KDQpQcmljaXBhbCBTb2Z0d2FyZSBFbmdpbmVlciANClZlcmlTaWduIEluYy4NCg0KX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRnJvbTogSG9sbGVuYmVjaywgU2NvdHQg DQpUbzogR291bGQsIEphbWVzOyBpZXRmLXByb3ZyZWdAY2FmYXguc2UgDQpTZW50OiBUdWUgRGVj IDA5IDEyOjQ5OjA0IDIwMDgNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBbaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnXSBETlNTRUMgRVBQ IEV4dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTApIFVzYWJpbGl0eSBRdWVzdGlvbiANCg0KDQpKaW0sIEkgdGhp bmsgSSBtaWdodCBoYXZlIGp1c3QgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCBhIHVzZSBjYXNlIHRoYXQgbWFrZXMgdGhl IDxzZXF1ZW5jZT4gYSBwcm9ibGVtLiAgSW1hZ2luZSBpZiBpdCB3ZXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIGNy ZWF0ZSBhIGNvbW1hbmQgdGhhdCBsb29rcyBsaWtlIHRoaXM6DQogDQo8c2VjRE5TOnVwZGF0ZQ0K ICAgeG1sbnM6c2VjRE5TPSJ1cm46aWV0ZjpwYXJhbXM6eG1sOm5zOnNlY0ROUy0xLjAiDQogICB4 c2k6c2NoZW1hTG9jYXRpb249InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczp4bWw6bnM6c2VjRE5TLTEuMCBzZWNE TlMtMS4wLnhzZCI+DQogICA8c2VjRE5TOnJlbT4NCiAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzprZXlUYWc+MTIzNDU8 L3NlY0ROUzprZXlUYWc+DQogICA8L3NlY0ROUzpyZW0+DQogICA8c2VjRE5TOmNoZz4NCiAgICAg PHNlY0ROUzpkc0RhdGE+DQogICAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzprZXlUYWc+MTIzNDU8L3NlY0ROUzprZXlU YWc+DQogICAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzphbGc+Mzwvc2VjRE5TOmFsZz4NCiAgICAgICA8c2VjRE5TOmRp Z2VzdFR5cGU+MTwvc2VjRE5TOmRpZ2VzdFR5cGU+DQogICAgICAgPHNlY0ROUzpkaWdlc3Q+NDlG RDQ2RTZDNEI0NUM1NUQ0QUM8L3NlY0ROUzpkaWdlc3Q+DQogICAgIDwvc2VjRE5TOmRzRGF0YT4N CiAgIDwvc2VjRE5TOmNoZz4NCjwvc2VjRE5TOnVwZGF0ZT4NCiANCklzIHRoZSBzZXJ2ZXIgc3Vw cG9zZWQgdG8gcmVtb3ZlIG9yIGNoYW5nZSB0aGUgZGF0YSBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGgga2V5VGFn IDEyMzQ1PyAgV2l0aCB0aGUgZXhpc3Rpbmcgc2NoZW1hIHRoZXJlJ3Mgbm8gYW1iaWd1aXR5Lg0K DQotU2NvdHQtIA0KDQogDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0K CUZyb206IG93bmVyLWlldGYtcHJvdnJlZ0BjYWZheC5zZSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLWlldGYtcHJv dnJlZ0BjYWZheC5zZV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEphbWVzIEdvdWxkDQoJU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwg RGVjZW1iZXIgMDksIDIwMDggMTI6MDQgUE0NCglUbzogaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnQGNhZmF4LnNlDQoJ U3ViamVjdDogW2lldGYtcHJvdnJlZ10gRE5TU0VDIEVQUCBFeHRlbnNpb24gKFJGQyA0MzEwKSBV c2FiaWxpdHkgUXVlc3Rpb24NCgkNCgkNCglJbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgdGhlIEROU1NFQyBFUFAgRXh0 ZW5zaW9uIChSRkMgNDMxMCkgSSBub3RpY2VkIG9uZSB1c2FiaWxpdHkgaXNzdWUgdGhhdCBJIHdv dWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gZ2V0IGZlZWRiYWNrIGZyb20gdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9u cyBvZiB0aGUgZXh0ZW5zaW9uLiAgDQoJDQoJVGhlIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gYWxsb3dzIGFkZGlu ZyAoPHNlY0ROUzphZGQ+KSwgcmVtb3ZpbmcgKDxzZWNETlM6cmVtPiksIGFuZCBjaGFuZ2luZyAo PHNlY0ROUzpjaGc+KSBEUyBkYXRhLCBidXQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIHRo ZXkgY2Fu4oCZdCBiZSBkb25lIGF0IHRoZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUuICBCZWxvdyBpcyBmcm9tIHRoZSBS RkMgNDIxMCBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIGZvciB0aGUgPHNlY0ROUzp1cGRhdGU+Og0KCQ0KCSAgICA8Y29t cGxleFR5cGUgbmFtZT0idXBkYXRlVHlwZSI+DQoJICAgICAgPGNob2ljZT4NCgkgICAgICAgIDxl bGVtZW50IG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5TOmRzVHlwZSIvPg0KCSAgICAgICAgIDxlbGVt ZW50IG5hbWU9ImNoZyIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5TOmRzVHlwZSIvPg0KCSAgICAgICAgIDxlbGVtZW50 IG5hbWU9InJlbSIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5TOnJlbVR5cGUiLz4NCgkgICAgICA8L2Nob2ljZT4NCgkg ICAgICA8YXR0cmlidXRlIG5hbWU9InVyZ2VudCIgdHlwZT0iYm9vbGVhbiIgZGVmYXVsdD0iZmFs c2UiLz4NCgkgICAgIDwvY29tcGxleFR5cGU+DQoJDQoJVG8gYWxsb3cgZm9yIGEgbWl4IG9mIGFk ZCwgY2hnLCBhbmQgcmVtLCBzaG91bGQgdGhlIFhNTCBzY2hlbWEgbW9kZWwgaW4gdGhlIERvbWFp biBNYXBwaW5nIChSRkMgNDkzMSkgdXBkYXRlVHlwZSBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIGRlZmluaXRpb24gYmUg dXNlZD8gIEkgdXBkYXRlZCB0aGUgRE5TU0VDIFhNTCBzY2hlbWEgYmVsb3cgdG8gbWF0Y2ggdGhl IGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIERvbWFpbiBNYXBwaW5nLCB0byBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBtaXggb2Yg YWRkLCBjaGcsIGFuZCByZW06DQoJDQoJICAgICAgPGNvbXBsZXhUeXBlIG5hbWU9InVwZGF0ZVR5 cGUiPg0KCSAgICAgIDxzZXF1ZW5jZT4NCgkgICAgICAgIDxlbGVtZW50IG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgdHlw ZT0ic2VjRE5TOmRzVHlwZSIgbWluT2NjdXJzPeKAnTDigJ0gLz4NCgkgICAgICAgICA8ZWxlbWVu dCBuYW1lPSJjaGciIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiIG1pbk9jY3Vycz3igJ0w4oCdIC8+DQoJ ICAgICAgICAgPGVsZW1lbnQgbmFtZT0icmVtIiB0eXBlPSJzZWNETlM6cmVtVHlwZSIgbWluT2Nj dXJzPeKAnTDigJ0gLz4NCgkgICAgICA8L3NlcXVlbmNlPg0KCSAgICAgIDxhdHRyaWJ1dGUgbmFt ZT0idXJnZW50IiB0eXBlPSJib29sZWFuIiBkZWZhdWx0PSJmYWxzZSIvPg0KCSAgICAgPC9jb21w bGV4VHlwZT4NCgkNCglIYXMgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBjb21l IGFjcm9zcyB0aGlzIGlzc3VlPyAgDQoJDQoJLS0gDQoJDQoJDQoJSkcgDQoJDQoJLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KCUphbWVzIEYu IEdvdWxkDQoJUHJpbmNpcGFsIFNvZnR3YXJlIEVuZ2luZWVyDQoJVmVyaVNpZ24gTmFtaW5nIFNl cnZpY2VzDQoJamdvdWxkQHZlcmlzaWduLmNvbQ0KCURpcmVjdDogNzAzLjk0OC4zMjcxDQoJTW9i aWxlOiA3MDMuNjI4LjcwNjMNCgkNCgkgDQoJMjEzNDUgUmlkZ2V0b3AgQ2lyY2xlDQoJTFMyLTIt MQ0KCUR1bGxlcywgVkEgMjAxNjYNCgkNCglOb3RpY2UgdG8gUmVjaXBpZW50OiAgVGhpcyBlLW1h aWwgY29udGFpbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBhbmQvb3IgUmVnaXN0cnkgIFNl bnNpdGl2ZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRlbmRlZCBzb2xlbHkgZm9yIHRoZSByZWNpcGllbnQgYW5k LCB0aHVzIG1heSBub3QgYmUgIHJldHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQsIHJlcHJvZHVjZWQgb3IgZGlzY2xvc2Vk IHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIHByaW9yIHdyaXR0ZW4gY29uc2VudCBvZiAgVmVyaVNpZ24gTmFtaW5nIGFu ZCBEaXJlY3RvcnkgU2VydmljZXMuICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCAgdGhpcyBlLW1haWwg bWVzc2FnZSBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGJ5 ICB0ZWxlcGhvbmUgb3IgcmVwbHkgZS1tYWlsIGFuZCBkZXN0cm95IHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNz YWdlIHdpdGhvdXQgbWFraW5nIGEgIGNvcHkuICBUaGFuayB5b3UuDQoJDQoNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPjxUSVRMRT5ETlNTRUMgRVBQIEV4dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTAp IFVzYWJpbGl0eSBRdWVzdGlvbjwvVElUTEU+DQo8TUVUQSBodHRwLWVxdWl2PUNvbnRlbnQtVHlw ZSBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXMtYXNjaWkiPg0KPE1FVEEgY29udGVudD0i TVNIVE1MIDYuMDAuNjAwMC4xNjczNSIgbmFtZT1HRU5FUkFUT1I+PC9IRUFEPg0KPEJPRFk+PHA+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPW5hdnkgZmFjZT1BcmlhbD4NClNjb3R0LDxicj48YnI+SSBiZWxp ZXZlIHRoYXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXAgdG8gdGhlIHNlcnZlciBwb2xpY3kgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBt aXggb2YgdXBkYXRlcyB0aGF0IGFyZSB2YWxpZC4gIFRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBjb3VsZCBzdXBwb3J0 IGEgbWl4IHVubGVzcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBzb21lIHNwZWNpZmljIHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgaXQgc2hvdWxk bid0LiAgQSBzaW1pbGFyIHVzZSBjYXNlIGNvdWxkIGFwcGx5IHRvIHRoZSBkb21haW4gbWFwcGlu ZyB3aGVyZSBhbiB1cGRhdGUgaW5jbHVkZXMgYW4gYWRkIGFuZCByZW1vdmUgb2YgdGhlIHNhbWUg c3RhdHVzIG9yIG5hbWUgc2VydmVyLjxicj48YnI+SmltDTxicj5KYW1lcyBGLiBHb3VsZA08YnI+ DTxicj5QcmljaXBhbCBTb2Z0d2FyZSBFbmdpbmVlcg08YnI+VmVyaVNpZ24gSW5jLjwvZm9udD48 L3A+DQo8cD48aHIgc2l6ZT0yIHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBhbGlnbj1jZW50ZXIgdGFiaW5kZXg9LTE+ DQo8Zm9udCBmYWNlPVRhaG9tYSBzaXplPTI+DQo8Yj5Gcm9tPC9iPjogSG9sbGVuYmVjaywgU2Nv dHQNPGJyPjxiPlRvPC9iPjogR291bGQsIEphbWVzOyBpZXRmLXByb3ZyZWdAY2FmYXguc2UgPGll dGYtcHJvdnJlZ0BjYWZheC5zZT4NPGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ8L2I+OiBUdWUgRGVjIDA5IDEyOjQ5OjA0 IDIwMDg8YnI+PGI+U3ViamVjdDwvYj46IFJFOiBbaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnXSBETlNTRUMgRVBQIEV4 dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTApIFVzYWJpbGl0eSBRdWVzdGlvbg08YnI+PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCg0K PERJViBkaXI9bHRyIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9MDYzNTk0MDE3LTA5MTIyMDA4PjxG T05UIGZhY2U9IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3IiANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgc2l6ZT0yPkppbSwgSSB0aGlu ayBJIG1pZ2h0IGhhdmUmbmJzcDtqdXN0IHJlbWVtYmVyZWQmbmJzcDthIHVzZSANCmNhc2UgdGhh dCBtYWtlcyB0aGUgJmx0O3NlcXVlbmNlJmd0OyBhIHByb2JsZW0uJm5ic3A7IDwvRk9OVD48L1NQ QU4+PFNQQU4gDQpjbGFzcz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkxMjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBO ZXciIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgc2l6ZT0yPkltYWdpbmUgDQppZiBpdCB3ZXJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRv IGNyZWF0ZSBhIGNvbW1hbmQgdGhhdCBsb29rcyBsaWtlIA0KdGhpczo8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwv RElWPg0KPERJViBkaXI9bHRyIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9MDYzNTk0MDE3LTA5MTIy MDA4PjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3IiANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmYgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9O VD48L1NQQU4+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIGRpcj1sdHIgYWxpZ249bGVmdD48U1BBTiBjbGFz cz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkxMjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBOZXciIA0KY29sb3I9IzAw MDBmZiBzaXplPTI+Jmx0O3NlY0ROUzp1cGRhdGU8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KeG1sbnM6c2Vj RE5TPSJ1cm46aWV0ZjpwYXJhbXM6eG1sOm5zOnNlY0ROUy0xLjAiPEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyAN CnhzaTpzY2hlbWFMb2NhdGlvbj0idXJuOmlldGY6cGFyYW1zOnhtbDpuczpzZWNETlMtMS4wIA0K c2VjRE5TLTEuMC54c2QiJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgDQombHQ7c2VjRE5TOnJlbSZndDs8 QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0O3NlY0ROUzprZXlUYWcmZ3Q7MTIzNDUm bHQ7L3NlY0ROUzprZXlUYWcmZ3Q7PEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiZsdDsvc2VjRE5TOnJlbSZn dDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpjaGcmZ3Q7PEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiZsdDtzZWNETlM6ZHNEYXRhJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgDQombHQ7c2VjRE5TOmtleVRhZyZndDsxMjM0NSZsdDsvc2VjRE5T OmtleVRhZyZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jmx0O3NlY0ROUzphbGcmZ3Q7MyZsdDsvc2VjRE5TOmFsZyZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpkaWdlc3RUeXBlJmd0OzEmbHQ7L3Nl Y0ROUzpkaWdlc3RUeXBlJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsgDQombHQ7c2VjRE5TOmRpZ2VzdCZndDs0OUZENDZFNkM0QjQ1QzU1RDRBQyZsdDsvc2VjRE5T OmRpZ2VzdCZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KJmx0Oy9zZWNETlM6ZHNE YXRhJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgJmx0Oy9zZWNETlM6Y2hnJmd0OzwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+ PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIGRpcj1sdHIgYWxpZ249bGVmdD48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkx MjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciBOZXciIA0KY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZiBzaXplPTI+Jmx0 Oy9zZWNETlM6dXBkYXRlJmd0OzwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIGRpcj1sdHIgYWxp Z249bGVmdD48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz0wNjM1OTQwMTctMDkxMjIwMDg+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iQ291cmll ciBOZXciIA0KY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZiBzaXplPTI+PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4N CjxESVYgZGlyPWx0ciBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0PjxTUEFOIGNsYXNzPTA2MzU5NDAxNy0wOTEyMjAwOD48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyIgDQpjb2xvcj0jMDAwMGZmIHNpemU9Mj5JcyB0aGUgc2Vy dmVyIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIHJlbW92ZSBvciBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIGRhdGEgDQphc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdp dGgga2V5VGFnIDEyMzQ1PyZuYnNwOyBXaXRoIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBzY2hlbWEgdGhlcmUncyBu byANCmFtYmlndWl0eS48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPjwhLS0gQ29udmVydGVkIGZyb20gdGV4 dC9wbGFpbiBmb3JtYXQgLS0+DQo8UD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+LVNjb3R0LTwvRk9OVD4gPC9QPg0K PERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj48QlI+DQo8QkxPQ0tRVU9URSANCnN0eWxlPSJQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6 IDVweDsgTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDVweDsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6ICMwMDAwZmYgMnB4IHNvbGlkOyBN QVJHSU4tUklHSFQ6IDBweCI+DQogIDxESVYgY2xhc3M9T3V0bG9va01lc3NhZ2VIZWFkZXIgbGFu Zz1lbi11cyBkaXI9bHRyIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+DQogIDxIUiB0YWJJbmRleD0tMT4NCiAgPEZPTlQg ZmFjZT1UYWhvbWEgc2l6ZT0yPjxCPkZyb206PC9CPiBvd25lci1pZXRmLXByb3ZyZWdAY2FmYXgu c2UgDQogIFttYWlsdG86b3duZXItaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnQGNhZmF4LnNlXSA8Qj5PbiBCZWhhbGYg T2YgPC9CPkphbWVzIA0KICBHb3VsZDxCUj48Qj5TZW50OjwvQj4gVHVlc2RheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIg MDksIDIwMDggMTI6MDQgUE08QlI+PEI+VG86PC9CPiANCiAgaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnQGNhZmF4LnNl PEJSPjxCPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9CPiBbaWV0Zi1wcm92cmVnXSBETlNTRUMgRVBQIEV4dGVuc2lvbiAN CiAgKFJGQyA0MzEwKSBVc2FiaWxpdHkgUXVlc3Rpb248QlI+PC9GT05UPjxCUj48L0RJVj4NCiAg PERJVj48L0RJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJDYWxpYnJpLCBWZXJkYW5hLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIEFyaWFs Ij48U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTFwdCI+SW4gcmV2aWV3aW5nIHRoZSBETlNT RUMgRVBQIEV4dGVuc2lvbiAoUkZDIDQzMTApIEkgDQogIG5vdGljZWQgb25lIHVzYWJpbGl0eSBp c3N1ZSB0aGF0IEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBnZXQgZmVlZGJhY2sgZnJvbSB0aGUgDQogIGV4aXN0 aW5nIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgZXh0ZW5zaW9uLiAmbmJzcDs8QlI+PEJSPlRoZSBz cGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIA0KICBhbGxvd3MgYWRkaW5nICgmbHQ7c2VjRE5TOmFkZCZndDspLCByZW1v dmluZyAoJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpyZW0mZ3Q7KSwgYW5kIA0KICBjaGFuZ2luZyAoJmx0O3NlY0ROUzpj aGcmZ3Q7KSBEUyBkYXRhLCBidXQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIHRoZXkgDQog IGNhbiYjODIxNzt0IGJlIGRvbmUgYXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGltZS4gJm5ic3A7QmVsb3cgaXMgZnJv bSB0aGUgUkZDIDQyMTAgWE1MIHNjaGVtYSANCiAgZm9yIHRoZSAmbHQ7c2VjRE5TOnVwZGF0ZSZn dDs6PEJSPjxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48Rk9OVCANCiAgZmFjZT0iQ291 cmllciwgQ291cmllciBOZXciPjxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMHB0Ij4mbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7Y29tcGxleFR5cGUgDQogIG5hbWU9InVwZGF0ZVR5cGUi Jmd0OzxCUj48Qj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7Y2hvaWNl Jmd0OzxCUj48L0I+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgDQogIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiLyZn dDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9ImNoZyIgDQogIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiLyZn dDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9InJlbSIgDQogIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpyZW1UeXBlIi8m Z3Q7PEJSPjxCPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZsdDsvY2hvaWNl Jmd0OzxCUj48L0I+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0O2F0dHJp YnV0ZSANCiAgbmFtZT0idXJnZW50IiB0eXBlPSJib29sZWFuIiANCiAgZGVmYXVsdD0iZmFsc2Ui LyZndDs8QlI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0Oy9jb21wbGV4VHlwZSZn dDs8QlI+PC9TUEFOPjwvRk9OVD48L0ZPTlQ+PEZPTlQgDQogIGZhY2U9IkNhbGlicmksIFZlcmRh bmEsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgQXJpYWwiPjxTUEFOIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDExcHQiPjxCUj5U byANCiAgYWxsb3cgZm9yIGEgbWl4IG9mIGFkZCwgY2hnLCBhbmQgcmVtLCBzaG91bGQgdGhlIFhN TCBzY2hlbWEgbW9kZWwgaW4gdGhlIA0KICBEb21haW4gTWFwcGluZyAoUkZDIDQ5MzEpIHVwZGF0 ZVR5cGUgWE1MIHNjaGVtYSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIGJlIHVzZWQ/ICZuYnNwO0kgDQogIHVwZGF0ZWQg dGhlIEROU1NFQyBYTUwgc2NoZW1hIGJlbG93IHRvIG1hdGNoIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHRo ZSBEb21haW4gDQogIE1hcHBpbmcsIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhlIG1peCBvZiBhZGQsIGNoZywgYW5k IA0KICByZW06PEJSPjxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48 Rk9OVCANCiAgZmFjZT0iQ291cmllciwgQ291cmllciBOZXciPjxTUEFOIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJ WkU6IDEwcHQiPiANCiAgJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0O2NvbXBsZXhUeXBlIA0KICBuYW1l PSJ1cGRhdGVUeXBlIiZndDs8QlI+PEI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jmx0O3NlcXVlbmNlJmd0OzxCUj48L0I+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jmx0O2VsZW1lbnQgDQogIG5hbWU9ImFkZCIgdHlwZT0ic2VjRE5T OmRzVHlwZSIgPEI+bWluT2NjdXJzPSYjODIyMTswJiM4MjIxOzwvQj4gDQogIC8mZ3Q7PEJSPiZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZsdDtl bGVtZW50IA0KICBuYW1lPSJjaGciIHR5cGU9InNlY0ROUzpkc1R5cGUiIDxCPm1pbk9jY3Vycz0m IzgyMjE7MCYjODIyMTs8L0I+IA0KICAvJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7ZWxlbWVudCANCiAgbmFtZT0icmVtIiB0 eXBlPSJzZWNETlM6cmVtVHlwZSIgPEI+bWluT2NjdXJzPSYjODIyMTswJiM4MjIxOzwvQj4gDQog IC8mZ3Q7PEJSPjxCPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZsdDsvc2Vx dWVuY2UmZ3Q7PEJSPjwvQj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7 YXR0cmlidXRlIA0KICBuYW1lPSJ1cmdlbnQiIHR5cGU9ImJvb2xlYW4iIA0KICBkZWZhdWx0PSJm YWxzZSIvJmd0OzxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbHQ7L2NvbXBsZXhU eXBlJmd0OzxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9OVCANCiAgZmFjZT0iQ2FsaWJyaSwg VmVyZGFuYSwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBBcmlhbCI+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEx cHQiPjxCUj5IYXMgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBjb21lIGFjcm9z cyANCiAgdGhpcyBpc3N1ZT8gJm5ic3A7PEJSPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0xPjxG T05UIA0KICBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIEFyaWFsIj48U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0iRk9O VC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPjxCUj4tLSANCiAgPEJSPjxCUj48QlI+SkcgPEJSPjxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9G T05UPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSM4MDAwMDA+PEZPTlQgDQogIGZhY2U9QXJpYWw+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0 eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDcuNXB0Ij4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPEJSPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9O VCANCiAgZmFjZT1BcmlhbD48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jN2YwMDAwPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48U1BBTiAN CiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTBwdCI+PEI+SmFtZXMgRi4gR291bGQ8QlI+PC9CPjwvU1BB Tj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIA0KICBzaXplPTI+PFNQQU4gc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTog MTBwdCI+PEI+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzRjNGM0Yz5QcmluY2lwYWwgU29mdHdhcmUgDQogIEVuZ2lu ZWVyPEJSPjwvRk9OVD48L0I+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzRjNGM0Yz5WZXJpU2lnbiBOYW1pbmcgDQog IFNlcnZpY2VzPEJSPjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMxMTAwZWY+PEZP TlQgc2l6ZT0xPjxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPjxBIA0KICBocmVmPSJq Z291bGRAdmVyaXNpZ24uY29tIj5qZ291bGRAdmVyaXNpZ24uY29tPC9BPjxCUj48L1NQQU4+PC9G T05UPjwvRk9OVD48Rk9OVCANCiAgc2l6ZT0xPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSM0YzRjNGM+PFNQQU4gc3R5 bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogNy41cHQiPjxCPkRpcmVjdDo8L0I+IA0KICA3MDMuOTQ4LjMyNzE8QlI+ PEI+TW9iaWxlOjwvQj4gNzAzLjYyOC43MDYzPEJSPjwvU1BBTj48L0ZPTlQ+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0 eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDcuNXB0Ij48QlI+Jm5ic3A7PEJSPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSM0YzRjNGM+ MjEzNDUgUmlkZ2V0b3AgDQogIENpcmNsZTxCUj5MUzItMi0xPEJSPkR1bGxlcywgVkEgMjAxNjY8 QlI+PC9GT05UPjxCUj48Rk9OVCANCiAgY29sb3I9IzdmMDAwMD48Qj48ST5Ob3RpY2UgdG8gUmVj aXBpZW50OiAmbmJzcDs8L0k+PC9CPjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PEk+PFNQQU4gDQogIHN0eWxlPSJG T05ULVNJWkU6IDlwdCI+VGhpcyBlLW1haWwgY29udGFpbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBwcm9wcmll dGFyeSBhbmQvb3IgDQogIFJlZ2lzdHJ5ICZuYnNwO1NlbnNpdGl2ZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRl bmRlZCBzb2xlbHkgZm9yIHRoZSByZWNpcGllbnQgYW5kLCANCiAgdGh1cyBtYXkgbm90IGJlICZu YnNwO3JldHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQsIHJlcHJvZHVjZWQgb3IgZGlzY2xvc2VkIHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIHBy aW9yIA0KICB3cml0dGVuIGNvbnNlbnQgb2YgJm5ic3A7VmVyaVNpZ24gTmFtaW5nIGFuZCBEaXJl Y3RvcnkgU2VydmljZXMuICZuYnNwOzxCPklmIA0KICB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCAmbmJzcDt0 aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBtZXNzYWdlIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgDQog IGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGJ5ICZuYnNwO3RlbGVwaG9uZSBvciByZXBseSBlLW1haWwgYW5kIGRlc3Ry b3kgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIA0KICBtZXNzYWdlIHdpdGhvdXQgbWFraW5nIGEgJm5ic3A7Y29weS48 L0I+ICZuYnNwO1RoYW5rIA0KICB5b3UuPC9TUEFOPjwvST48L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIA0K ICBmYWNlPSJDYWxpYnJpLCBWZXJkYW5hLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIEFyaWFsIj48U1BBTiANCnN0eWxl PSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDExcHQiPjxCUj48L0JMT0NLUVVPVEU+PC9TUEFOPjwvRk9OVD48L0JPRFk+ PC9IVE1MPg0K ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A27.70BFCABE-- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9Hn3pH005203 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:49:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9Hn3x2011382 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:49:03 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9Hn2Aj002127 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:49:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9Hib28012126 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:44:37 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:49:01 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9" Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:49:04 -0500 Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CC5F9@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQABR6+g References: From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" To: "Gould, James" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:49:01.0662 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B8FE7E0:01C95A26] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim, I think I might have just remembered a use case that makes the a problem. Imagine if it were possible to create a command that looks like this: =20 12345 12345 3 1 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC =20 Is the server supposed to remove or change the data associated with keyTag 12345? With the existing schema there's no ambiguity. -Scott-=20 =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James Gould Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question =09 =09 In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of the extension. =20 =09 The specification allows adding (), removing (), and changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can't be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : =09 =09 To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: =09 =09 Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? =20 =09 --=20 =09 =09 JG=20 =09 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =09 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 =09 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability = Question
Jim, I think I might have just = remembered a use=20 case that makes the <sequence> a problem.  = Imagine=20 if it were possible to create a command that looks like=20 this:
 
<secDNS:update
  =20 xmlns:secDNS=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0"
  =20 xsi:schemaLocation=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0=20 secDNS-1.0.xsd">
  =20 <secDNS:rem>
    =20 <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
  =20 </secDNS:rem>
  =20 <secDNS:chg>
    =20 <secDNS:dsData>
      =20 <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
   &nb= sp;   <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
 &nbs= p;    =20 <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
   = ;   =20 <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
 =    =20 </secDNS:dsData>
   = </secDNS:chg>
</secDNS:update>
 
Is the server supposed to remove or change the = data=20 associated with keyTag 12345?  With the existing schema there's no=20 ambiguity.

-Scott-

 

From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se=20 [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of James=20 Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:04 = PM
To:=20 ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP = Extension=20 (RFC 4310) Usability Question

In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC = 4310) I=20 noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the = existing implementations of the extension.  

The = specification=20 allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<secDNS:rem>), and = changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XML schema = they=20 can’t be done at the same time.  Below is from the RFC 4210 = XML schema=20 for the <secDNS:update>:

    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <cho= ice>
        <elemen= t=20 name=3D"add"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"chg"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
       =   <element=20 name=3D"rem"=20 = type=3D"secDNS:remType"/>
      &l= t;/choice>
      <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

To=20 allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in = the=20 Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? =  I=20 updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the = Domain=20 Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and=20 rem:

  =20    <complexType=20 = name=3D"updateType">
      <seq= uence>
        <elem= ent=20 name=3D"add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” = = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” = = />
         <elemen= t=20 name=3D"rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType" = minOccurs=3D”0”=20 = />
      </sequence>
=       <attribute=20 name=3D"urgent" type=3D"boolean"=20 = default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType&= gt;

Has any of the current implementations = come across=20 this issue?  

--=20


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
= James F. = Gould
Principal Software=20 Engineer
VeriSign Naming=20 Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct:=20 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 = Ridgetop=20 Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient: =  This e-mail contains confidential, = proprietary and/or=20 Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient = and,=20 thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without = the prior=20 written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. =  If=20 you have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify = the sender=20 immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the = original=20 message without making a  copy.  Thank=20 you.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C95A26.6B3B9CF9-- Return-Path: Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9H4PkC018661 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:25 +0100 (MET) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id mB9H4Pfl009228 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:25 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9H4ObZ017118 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mB9GxxOC010329 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:59:59 -0500 Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:04:23 -0500 Received: from 10.131.29.236 ([10.131.29.236]) by dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:04:22 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:04:20 -0500 Subject: [ietf-provreg] DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question From: James Gould To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question Thread-Index: AclaIC0qOpmEAamYBUig9GPbzl4KmQ== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3311669061_6430164" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 17:04:23.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F857AE0:01C95A20] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3311669061_6430164 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability issue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations o= f the extension. =20 The specification allows adding (), removing (), an= d changing () DS data, but according to the XML schema they can=B9t be done at the same time. Below is from the RFC 4210 XML schema for the : =20 To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used? I updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain Mapping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem: =20 Has any of the current implementations come across this issue? --=20 JG=20 ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 =20 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior writte= n consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. --B_3311669061_6430164 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question In reviewing the DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) I noticed one usability i= ssue that I would like to get feedback from the existing implementations of = the extension.  

The specification allows adding (<secDNS:add>), removing (<secDNS:= rem>), and changing (<secDNS:chg>) DS data, but according to the XM= L schema they can’t be done at the same time.  Below is from the = RFC 4210 XML schema for the <secDNS:update>:

     <complexType name=3D"updateT= ype">
      <choice>
         <element name=3D"= ;add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
         <element name=3D&quo= t;chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType"/>
         <element name=3D&quo= t;rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType"/>
      </choice>
       <attribute name=3D"urgent&qu= ot; type=3D"boolean" default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType>
To allow for a mix of add, chg, and rem, should the XML schema model in the= Domain Mapping (RFC 4931) updateType XML schema definition be used?  I= updated the DNSSEC XML schema below to match the definition of the Domain M= apping, to support the mix of add, chg, and rem:

  =    <complexType name=3D"u= pdateType">
      <sequence>
         <element name=3D"= ;add" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” /= >
         <element name=3D&quo= t;chg" type=3D"secDNS:dsType" minOccurs=3D”0” = />
         <element name=3D&quo= t;rem" type=3D"secDNS:remType" minOccurs=3D”0”= />
      </sequence>
       <attribute name=3D"urgent&qu= ot; type=3D"boolean" default=3D"false"/>
     </complexType>
Has any of the current implementations come across this issue?  

--


JG

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, propriet= ary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the reci= pient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed with= out the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Service= s.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please = notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy= the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.
 --B_3311669061_6430164--