RE: Last-Verified Date Contact Element

["Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>]

Rick,

I think you raise a good question about registry object maintenance. A
similar problem also exists for host objects. However, I would like to
understand why the new field is needed. If the sole purpose is for garbage
collection in the registry, it can be done through registry internal
book-keeping. What do you think?

--Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:35 AM
To: shollenbeck@verisign.com
Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com;
iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-not43] Last-Verified Date Contact Element



Scott && IESG,

I realized that there is an item we have overlooked in the wg. In private
conversations, myself and others have noted that there is no way to
identify the last time a contact object was verified.

I propose that we add a "Last-Verified" date element to the contact object
so that registries/registrars may express the last time the object was
verified. Since contacts have no expiration date and the "last-modified"
date is irreverent to verification.

I believe that this will aid in identifying old, stale and irreverent data
within a registry and if the element is published in CRISP or whois to the
community in general.

I know it is late in the game for identifing issues with the epp proposals
so I have CCed the IESG.

-rick




_______________________________________________
Ietf-not43 mailing list
Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43