Re: <check> Response Attribute

[Ed Rahn <ed@ItsYourDomain.Com>]

As this would be registry specific, I don't think it  should be the
only thing returned. When doing a check, x should be yes or no. The reason
why should either be another attribute with a reason why, or a new result
code could be created and the reason could be returned in the msg tag.

Ed Rahn
ItsYourDomain.com

"The Wholesale Registrar"

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Daniel Manley wrote:

> 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/>
> >
> 
> 
> 
>