To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
"'budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com'" <budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>
Date:
Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:06:11 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010913
Subject:
Re: <check> Response Attribute
That might also come in handy for objects that are "pendingDelete". Dan Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com >>[mailto:budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com] >>Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 7:27 PM >>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se >>Subject: RE: <check> Response Attribute >> >> >>On 23 Sep 01, at 15:09, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> >>>>I think it would be helpfull if unavailable could return a reason. >>>> >>>OK, I agree. I can think of two based on the discussion >>> >>that's taken place: >> >>>"taken" (or some other word that means "already registered"), and >>>"reserved". Are there any others, and if so what do they mean? >>> >>Would there be a support for "unknown"? >>We have a situation in which the status of the domain >>is "pending". (eg. dispute, will be closed - just waiting >>for confirmation.) >>Or perhaps this can be lumped as "taken"? >>(but will be available in the next day or so?) >> > >Budi, > >"unknown" seems to defeat the purpose for providing a reason for >unavailability, but maybe "dispute" makes sense. Would it help registrars >to know that something is unavailable due to a dispute, with the implication >being that it may become available "soon"? > ><Scott/> >