RE: Last-Verified Date Contact Element

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Hong,

as i stated before "verification" is a policy that is up to the registry
to describe. i'm just talking about protocol elements not about how you 
as a tld manager should implement it.

-rick

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Liu, Hong wrote:

> Rick,
> 
> I admit that I don't know all the activities going on with many other groups
> and what requirements are there for this new element. Maybe you could share
> with us how this element will be used and what exactly verification means.
> Thanks!
> 
> --Hong
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:54 AM
> To: Liu, Hong
> Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> Subject: RE: Last-Verified Date Contact Element
> 
> 
> 
> the thought is not only garbage collection, but that we have the element
> in the protocol to comply with future recomendations which many groups are
> pulling for at the moment.
> 
> 
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Liu, Hong wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
>