© 2004 VeriSign, Inc. Domain Registry Version 2 (DREG2) Andrew Newton 8 November 2005 IETF 64 CRISP Working Group Vancouver, BC, Canada

2 Why Version 2 + DREG was the first IRIS registry type created. + Since then: + AREG and EREG have gone through the standardization process + CREDREG and RREG proposed + So we’ve learned a bit more about how we want these data models to look and feel. + Interest from new players + Data model needs to expand to meet their needs. + Changing realities of the domain name industry

3 Timeline + Apologies for no actual draft. + I’ve been distracted with other matters recently. + But the schema and example are available: None of this is rocket science. + There is probably only one controversial issue. + We should be able to complete this before the next IETF.

4 Organizations + New result. + Contains pointers to contacts. + Has new element. + Pointers in will be able to point to either or results. + New ‘org-handle’ entity class. + New search. + Just like except that it looks for + Structurally, this shares the ‘baseOrganizationType’ definition. + Shared with + So this result now has optional contact entity references and address elements.

5 Clarification on IDNs + was NOT intended to return ALL variants. + That list could be very, very big. + The intent was to return the variants that are in the registration system. + Calculation of the variants can be done client-side if the client knows the registration rules upon which the registry/registrar operate. + New query. + New result. + Specifies well known identifiers for registration rules. + Does not actually invent rule semantics. + New ‘registration-rule’ entity class. + This mechanism is actually generic and not just specific to IDNs.

6 Partial Match + Expanded to do +

7 New Status Values and Structure + Revamped to be more meaningful to EPP based operations T12:00:00Z 123-ABC <update disposition="prohibited" actor="registrar"> T12:05:00Z 456-ABC Domain created by registrar. Registrar prohibits updates five minutes later.

8 Status Values By Result +,, and have too active, inactive, dispute, renew, addPeriod, renewPeriod, autoRenewPeriod, transferPeriod, redemptionPeriod, restore, reserved, create, delete, update, transfer, other linked, reserved, create, delete, update, transfer, other linked, reserved, create, delete, update, transfer, other linked, reserved, create, delete, update, transfer, other

9 Smaller Changes + Added “Registration Service Provider” + Per William Leibzon + On + + For DNSSEC. + Multiple references. + On +

10 The Controversy: + Removed from + IESG pushback on this in EREG + It is a non-standard protocol address. + Any new I18N address standard will likely have to be backwards compatible with non-I18N addresses. + So, we can still use. + Display issues should be handled by the client, just like with IDN. + The reason there is an field is due to the lossy nature of IDN transformation and variants in the registration system. + But this isn’t an address registration system, so this issue does not apply to addresses.

© 2004 VeriSign, Inc. Thank You You can send questions to list at Or privately to me at Schema and examples are available at