RE: <info> Command and authInfo

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Scott,

> 
> I'm wondering how people feel about adding an optional 
> <authInfo> element to
> the domain <info> command.  Sponsoring clients wouldn't have 
> to use it; they
> can continue to "see" all of the domains they sponsor.  
> Clients who need to
> see something in the context of a transfer can provide the 
> <authInfo> to see
> domain object info via the protocol, eliminating the need to 
> go out-of-band.
> Data mining protections are still in place because 
> non-sponsoring clients
> who don't have the <authInfo> can't see domains sponsored by 
> other clients.
> 
> This sort of change would let us tighten up the EPP spec a 
> bit, which should
> help with interoperability.  I know we finished a WG last 
> call, but I'm in
> the docs now working on wrapping up the changes based on 
> last-call comments
> and would like to know how folks feel about this change given their
> operational experience with RRP.
> 


I would support that.  I have been reviewing the EPP specs for ".au", and I
had the same thought that the authinfo element should be available with
commands other than transfer, but that it should be optional.  You might
consider it for <update>, <delete> and <renew>.

It provides a bit more flexibility for the registry.

I also think that some of the <info> data elements in the epp-domain-03.txt
should be made optional (ie minOccurs="0") (ie returned to the sponsoring
registrar only, or returned to a registrar that uses the authinfo element).
For example: <domain:crDate> and <domain:exDate>.  These two dates are being
used extensively in Australia for unsolicited spamming of registrants for
renewals.  We don't currently display expiry date information to other than
the sponsoring reseller.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin