RE: <info> Command and authInfo

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 6:42 PM
> To: 'Hollenbeck, Scott'
> Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> Subject: RE: <info> Command and authInfo
> 
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> > 
> > I'm wondering how people feel about adding an optional <authInfo>
element to
> > the domain <info> command.

[snip]

> 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.

Bruce,

I'm not so sure of the benefit in putting <authInfo> into the <update>,
<delete> and <renew> commands given the discussion we had on the list some
time ago (we DID have it that way, and then folks wanted it removed from all
but <transfer>), but I understand what you're saying about the dates and the
<info> command.  While there might be business models built around acquiring
those dates, I'm not sure that it's good engineering to have _all_ domain
info available to any client who cares to look.

-Scott-