ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications was published on April 13th.
Looking through that document, i noticed that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to
transmit trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.

Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a new gTLD, i was wondering whether
there is already work going on regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not
make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their own schema/extension in order to
support those required new data fields (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple
extensions as well..). 

Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of those extensions in an internet draft,
i think it makes sense to bundle forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech contacts to other emerging new gTLD
backend operators, in order to discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP implementation).

Comments are highly appreciated.

thanks

Alex Mayrhofer
Head of R&D  <at>  nic.at

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

On 17/04/12 12:12, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications was
> published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed that it
> requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit trademark
> claims/registration related data over EPP.
>
>

Hi,

can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed that. 
Thanks in advance.

Klaus
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer <at> nic.at> wrote:
>Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
>those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
>forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
>extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
>contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
>discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
>implementation).

The extensions and the overall process need to be discussed and worked on. It would be interesting to add
test sites to that work. Perhaps that could be shared?

Count me in...

-lem
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

On 17 Apr 2012, at 1:08 PM, Luis Muñoz wrote:

> 
> 
> Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer <at> nic.at> wrote:
>> Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
>> those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
>> forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
>> extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
>> contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
>> discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
>> implementation).
> 
> The extensions and the overall process need to be discussed and worked on. It would be interesting to add
test sites to that work. Perhaps that could be shared?
> 
> Count me in...
> 

Ditto

--

-- 
Regards
Theo

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

Hi,

Alexander is probably referring to
https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home
and more specific to
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-Draft-13apr12.pdf
which contains some hints to extensions on the epp scheme.

Notice that these are all draft documents. The 'claims'/notification
part might be of particular interest too since it involves a lot of
interaction between various parties including registry - registrar and
registrar - registrant exchange of confirmation.

-jan-

> On 17/04/12 12:12, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
>> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications
>> was
>> published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed that
>> it
>> requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit trademark
>> claims/registration related data over EPP.
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed
> that.
> Thanks in advance.

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

> can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed
> that.
> Thanks in advance.

Sorry, i should have added the link to my initial message. Here you go:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-Draft-13apr12.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1334362955253

cheers,

Alex

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

Re: ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

In this draft, it emphasizes the IDN readiness. "The Clearinghouse will
accept trademark information in its native form (i.e., using the Unicode
character set); specific variant character mappings must be handled by the
registry." But it leaves to the Registry to handle IDN variants.

When there's a variant domain registration, shall we check all the variant
domains for several times with TMCH if no EPP extension is available?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:26 PM
> To: Klaus Malorny; provreg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
> 
> > can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have
> > missed that.
> > Thanks in advance.
> 
> Sorry, i should have added the link to my initial message. Here you go:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-D
> raft-13apr12.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1334362955253
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________

draft-wullink-restful-epp-00.txt

Hello,

[I've cross posted this also to regops <at> nlnetlabs.nl]

SIDN, being the registry for .nl, employs EPP as the primary interface for
registrars to submit or manipulate domain names. Even though the protocol is
working quite well, at SIDN Labs we believed there was room for improvement.

Experience over the years revealed certain operational shortcomings in EPP,
mainly related to the stateful nature of the protocol:

* EPP may pose challenges in load-balanced environments, when a active session
  has to be switched from one EPP server to another and state is kept on a per
  server basis.

* EPP sessions can wind up in a state where they are no longer linked to an
  active TCP connection. This may raise problems in situations where session
  limits are enforced.

Our draft http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wullink-restful-epp-00.txt
aims to solve these issues, by proposing a RESTful EPP interface.

The Abstract reads:

       This document specifies a 'RESTful interface for EPP' (REPP) with the    
       aim to improve efficiency and interoperability of EPP systems.           

       This document includes a new EPP Protocol Extension as well as a mapping 
       of [RFC5730] XML-commands to an HTTP based (RESTful) interface. Existing 
       semantics and mappings as defined in [RFC5731], [RFC5732] and [RFC5733]  

Re: draft-wullink-restful-epp-00.txt

Miek,

As I said in our off-list email exchange a few weeks ago, this document describes something that is
"EPP-like" as opposed to an extension of EPP.  The document should make that point clear.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:provreg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Miek Gieben
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:52 AM
> To: provreg <at> ietf.org
> Cc: regops <at> nlnetlabs.nl
> Subject: [provreg] draft-wullink-restful-epp-00.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> [I've cross posted this also to regops <at> nlnetlabs.nl]
> 
> SIDN, being the registry for .nl, employs EPP as the primary interface
> for registrars to submit or manipulate domain names. Even though the
> protocol is working quite well, at SIDN Labs we believed there was room
> for improvement.
> 
> Experience over the years revealed certain operational shortcomings in
> EPP, mainly related to the stateful nature of the protocol:
> 
> * EPP may pose challenges in load-balanced environments, when a active
> session
>   has to be switched from one EPP server to another and state is kept

Re: draft-wullink-restful-epp-00.txt

[ Quoting <shollenbeck <at> verisign.com> in "RE: [provreg] draft-wullink-restful..." ]
> Miek,
> 
> As I said in our off-list email exchange a few weeks ago, this document
> describes something that is "EPP-like" as opposed to an extension of EPP. The
> document should make that point clear.

Yes, we (try to) do that. The problem is that EPP is *defined* as being
stateful, which is clearly something we break.

Regards,
    Miek Gieben

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg