Re: <check> Response Attribute

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

It seems to me that the <check> command would be most useful if it was read
as "can I register this name?"  That is primarily a yes/no decision, even
if the domain name is out of scope of the registry.  (You can't register a
.is name with Verisign's registry.)

As with any yes/no situations, there are times when extra explanation is
helpful.  My question is whether EPP would want to adopt three or four
kinds of responses - yes, no, no with explanation (the three), and possibly
yes with explanation (that being the fourth).

I'm not talking MUST, SHOULD here, I'm asking "what do we need to solve the
problem."

Keep in mind that <check> is the lightweight request/response intended for
limited information.  We discussed this back in February as mostly a
pre-sales function, inherently different from post-sales functions.

As an aside - whether a name exists is a real existentialist dilemma.
Pardon my indulgence here, but in fact all names possible in a zone already
exist - but we haven't thought of them all yet.  DNS names (recognizing
that DNS is just the first topic of registration) are limited to 255
octets, which is about 2K bits, and 2^2k possibilities minus special cases.
Boom - all names exist.  So let's just be concerned about thise we can work
with - those available for registration.  Of course, if someone wants to
debate a different interpretation for the check command, raise it and we'll
look at it.  (I'm not being facetious.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.