Re: <info> Command and authInfo

[Patrick <patrick@gandi.net>]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:28:50AM -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott took time to write:
> 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. 

I agree with Bruce on this : the authinfo should have a bigger scope.

Right now it is only for transfers (and thus should have been called
transfer auth or something like that, not auth info), and as we
already see it with some Registries using EPP, transfers are hard.

The auth info does not help anything regarding transfers.
It just complicates things (current Registrar not giving it, and if
the new Registrar already asks contacts for approval, the authinfo is
of nouse... since it will be given to contacts, thus same problems in
both case of hijacking and such).

IMNSHO auth info should enable someone having it to make
modifications (that is update at least, maybe delete and renew)
through any other ways (other Registrars, or even the Registry
directly). Protocols should make that possible, and then 
local policies should specify if it is to be used or not, and if yes,
how.

Regards,
Patrick.