Re: <check> Response Attribute

[Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>]

Oh, I agree.  I mentioned before that "x" should still only by true or 
false.  A second attribute could be added to provide the reason for a 
true response (true meaning "exists in the registry").

Dan

Ed Rahn wrote:

>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/>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>