RE: Pending Update

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

Hello Scott,

This make sense to me.

We have the equivalent of this in the current ".au" registry, where a domain
name is listed as pending in the registry (thus preventing someone else
registering it), while policy compliance is checked.

In the new ".au" registry, the plan was for the registrars to manually check
the name before it gets to the registry.
However I could see that for some circumstances you might want a registry
staff member to manually check some information before a action is
completed.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:39 AM
> To: 'Liu, Hong'; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> Subject: RE: Pending Update
> 
> 
> Hong,
> 
> There's a somewhat analogous situation related to creating 
> domain names in
> that sometimes the object really shouldn't be instantiated 
> until after some
> manual process determines that the domain is "valid".  Right 
> now the specs
> include a domain status of "pendingVerification" to note that a domain
> object create command has been processed, but the action 
> hasn't yet really
> be completed.
> 
> As for the discussion requested below, I think it might be 
> helpful to add a
> response code that says something like "Command completed 
> successfully;
> action pending".  We have to separate command completion from back-end
> processing such that we maintain the OLTP ACID properties 
> (basically that
> commands have no partial success or partial failure), so we 
> need to note
> that the command has been received and processed but that 
> something else
> needs to happen before some back-end stuff completes.  We 
> could also add a
> "pendingVerification" status to the host mapping to note the 
> situation in
> subsequent <info> command responses.
> 
> I'm not going to touch the documents again until we get some 
> feedback from
> the IESG, but adding a new response code and a new host 
> status could well be
> done when dealing with IESG comments.
> 
> -Scott- 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liu, Hong [mailto:Hong.Liu@neustar.biz]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:53 PM
> > To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> > Subject: Pending Update
> > 
> > 
> > The current update operation defined in EPP is basically a 
> > two step process:
> > First, an update request is made by the registrar to the 
> > registry. Second,
> > the registry either rejects the request or performs the 
> > operation; and a
> > response is sent back to the registrar.
> > 
> > A pending update refers to a four step process: First, an 
> > update request is
> > made by the registrar to the registry. Second, the registry 
> > acknowledges the
> > request to the registrar but does not take action for the 
> > moment, i.e., the
> > update is pending. Third, upon further authorization, the 
> > registry either
> > rejects the request or performs the operation; then posts the 
> > result to the
> > message queue. Fourth, the registrar polls the message queue 
> > to retrieve the
> > result of the operation.
> > 
> > Conceptually, pending update is very similar to the 
> transfer operation
> > currently defined in EPP.
> > 
> > I would like to hear from the list how such operation is 
> > supported by EPP.
> > If this topic has been discussed before on the mailing list, I would
> > appreciate pointers to the previous discussions.
> > 
>