Re: last-verified-date

[Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>]

In terms of other objects, the practical example of .us comes to mind -- 
they restrict domain delegation to nameservers physically located in the 
US, right?

Dan


James M Woods a écrit:

>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?
>
>Thoughts?
>
>James
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se]
>On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
>Sent: November 14, 2002 4:05 PM
>To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
>Subject: last-verified-date
>
>
>
>One of the items on the agenda for tuesday is a proposal for an element
>of contacts objects. I'd like to get some discussion going on this so we
>can stay in the 10 minutes allocated to the topic in our session.
>
>2.9 Last Verified Date
>
>The date the contact had the opportunity to affirm that the information
>associated with the contact is correct. Registries MAY set policy on how
>checking is preformed and what if any procedure a registrar MUST apply
>to ensure correct Registrant data.
>
>
>The concept is to add some quality assurance mechanism to the registrant
>data and to make available for the publishing of the data in WHOIS or a
>CRISP protocol so that end-users can have an indicator as to the last
>date the information was verified.
>
>I appreciate any thoughts the group has on this proposal.
>
>thanks,
>
>-rick
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Daniel Manley
Tucows, Inc.
Toronto, Canada
dmanley@tucows.com