RE: Last-Verified Date Contact Element

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

Rick,

Maybe I am slow in catching up with your thoughts here. So let me try to
break down the issue into a series of questions. My goal is to understand
exactly how that new element is going to be used.

What type of contact object you have in your mind? Are you talking about
contact objects that are linked to domains with outdated contact information
or contact objects that are _not_ linked to any domains? If you are talking
about the latter type, that is the garbage collection I mentioned in my
previous emails.

Your answer to this question will help clarify what this element is going to
be used for.

Thanks!

--Hong
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:36 PM
To: Liu, Hong
Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
Subject: RE: Last-Verified Date Contact Element



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
> > 
>