[gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments

[Matthias Pfeifer]

Oops. I have overseen the attached Draft from Gustavo.

Sorry for the noise.




> Von: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] Im
> Auftrag von Matthias Pfeifer
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2013 11:57
> An: gtld-tech at icann.org
> Betreff: Re: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Thanks for bringing  up this discussion.
> 
> > The host in the * IN A/AAAA will only answer requests on TCP/80.
> >
> > The TTL in the reply from the URS provider NSs will be short to
> > accommodate the case in which the original NSs are restored.
> >
> > Obivously, this solution do not consider protocols other than HTTP and
> > SMTP.
> 
> Are there any other (other that here:
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs) written documents or drafts
> where is discussed how to handle locked domain names (MX=0, only 80/25
> as open ports, etc)?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Matthias Pfeifer IT-Consulting // .versicherung
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org]
> > Im Auftrag von Gustavo Lozano
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2013 01:34
> > An: John R. Levine
> > Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org
> > Betreff: Re: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments
> >
> > Thank you John, please send your feedback directly to this list.
> >
> > Regarding email, the current idea is that the NSs for URS locking
> > provided by the URS provider, reply with MX 0 . when queried for the
> > MX of a URS locked domain name.
> >
> > The host in the * IN A/AAAA will only answer requests on TCP/80.
> >
> > The TTL in the reply from the URS provider NSs will be short to
> > accommodate the case in which the original NSs are restored.
> >
> > Obivously, this solution do not consider protocols other than HTTP and
> > SMTP.
> >
> > The high level requirements for URS are described in the AGB
> > (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-
> > en.pdf)
> > , pp. 299-309.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gustavo
> >
> > On 7/8/13 3:29 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Please provide your feedback no later than Tuesday 23 of July.
> > >
> > >Thanks for publishing this.
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, the "URS Lock with Redirection" spec is a security
> > >disaster for e-mail, pariticularly since, as I understand it, a
> > >typical use for the URS will be to deal with typosquats of famous
> > >names such as páypàl.tld.
> > >
> > >Do we just send comments to you or is there a more formal place?  I
> > >expect that several anti-abuse organizations will want to weigh in.
> > >
> > >R's,
> > >John