RE: last-verified-date

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, James M Woods wrote:

> Rick,
>
> I think this is an excellent inclusion to the specs. I support it, so
> long as its adopted as being optional at the registry level. As an aside
> I also see some third party business applications opportunities by
> including this..but I digress.
>
> To stir the pot a bit... are contacts the only objects we'd care to have
> optionally last verified?


contact objects for domain registries are the only objects that the
registry does not authortatively manage. The domain registration and in
zone name servers all have constraints which prevent invalid registration.

The data in contact objects also change over time as postal codes and area
codes change over time.

as to the optional bit, are you requesting last-verified-date be optional
for the protocol or optional that registries preform some verification? If
the language isn't clear enought I'd like to make it clear that the
responsibility is on the registrar not the registry to give the contact
the oppertunity to confirm the data.

the only registry responsibility MUST be to allow the registrar to twiddle
the bits.

best,

-rick