Document Shepherd Writeup
This document describes an extension of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) domain name mapping for the provisioning and management of strict bundling registration of domain names. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of bundled domain names.
Working Group Summary
The WG discussed this topic in both mailing list and at meetings, there are no controversies or lack of coverage. The working group had discussed and considered to move forward as an Informational RFC, the WG and the related BOF (DNSBundle) discussed the topic this document covers and nobody objects to its publication within the limited scope it covers.
The original draft has covers more different scenarios (relax bundling), also had some other drafts covering similar problems, and the working group was also mindful of work output and coordination needed with DNSBundle. The work effort was consolidated and moved forward to cover a very specific scenario only. The working group also agrees that DNSBundle does not prevent the publication of the draft covering the specific scenario (strict bundling).
This document covers the very specific scenario, strict bundling, and introduces one specific mechanism on how to manage that problem space. The WG is aware of the narrow specific scope this document covers and discussed how best to move this document forward. he consensus is to progress this document as an Informational RFC.
There are two registry implementations captured in the Implementation Status section. There is one open source implementation available on client side.
Shepherd: Joseph Yee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AD: Adam Roach
The document shepherd reviewed the latest version (-09) of the document and this document’s discussion both on the mailing lists (REGEXT and DNSBundle) and in meetings (REGEXT and DNSBundle).
The shepherd has no concern on the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.
There are several XML samples and one formal syntax on the XML. The shepherd ran the syntax check and found no error, and also verified the samples in the draft against the provided schema.
Verisign has IPR information:
The working group is aware of this IPR and the consensus is to progress the document.