Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-04
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Allison Mankin |
|
2004-06-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-06-02
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2004-06-02
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2004-06-02
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2004-05-28
|
04 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-05-27 |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Old: As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client. New: As with other … [Note]: 'Old: As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client. New: As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client as authenticated using the mechanisms described in sections 2.9.1.1 and 7 of RFC 3730 [1].' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Ted Hardie | [Note]: 'Old: As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client. New: As with other … [Note]: 'Old: As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client. New: As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client as authenticated using the mechanisms described in sections 2.9.1.1 and 7 of RFC 3730 [1].' added by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] I cleared the my Discuss - Ted and Scott are writing an RFC Editor note to better clarify "As with other domains" to … [Ballot comment] I cleared the my Discuss - Ted and Scott are writing an RFC Editor note to better clarify "As with other domains" to tighten the coupling to EPP's mechanims. My Discuss note was: "As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain  object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client." The method of accomplishing this is actually left looser than we usually do in protocols, even though there's a MUST implement mechanism in RFC 3730 - why isn't a login with SASL actually shown (since this is a MUST implement as part of 3730), and then there could be alternatives beyond this? |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Kent Crispin, Gen-ART This draft is in quite good shape, and I was hard pressed to find anything to complain about. … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Kent Crispin, Gen-ART This draft is in quite good shape, and I was hard pressed to find anything to complain about. One small nit. The draft says: More detailed information describing the information required to be provided in a restore report is available from ICANN. I spent 5 minutes trying to find that information on the ICANN web site, and I couldn't find the authoritative description. It should be referenced, if it exists. I don't see this as a reason to hold up publication, however. |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client. The method of … [Ballot discuss] As with other domain object updates, redemption of a deleted domain object MUST be restricted to the sponsoring client. The method of accomplishing this is actually left looser than we usually do in protocols, even though there's a MUST implement mechanism in RFC 3730 - why isn't a login with SASL actually shown (since this is a MUST implement as part of 3730), and then there could be alternatives beyond this? |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] Reference: [11] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998. Should probably … |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2004-05-27
|
04 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
|
2004-05-26
|
04 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
|
2004-05-26
|
04 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2004-05-26
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2004-05-25
|
04 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
|
2004-05-20
|
04 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2004-05-20
|
04 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from In Last Call by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-05-20
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-05-27 by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-05-20
|
04 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie |
|
2004-05-20
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-05-20
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Last Call was requested by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Area acronymn has been changed to app from gen |
|
2004-04-23
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2004-04-19
|
04 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to AD Evaluation from AD is watching by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-04-16
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-04.txt |
|
2004-04-07
|
04 | Ted Hardie | Draft Added by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-04-06
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-03.txt |
|
2003-12-17
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-02.txt |
|
2003-07-31
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt |
|
2003-05-19
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-00.txt |