[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:22:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3DD91398.90007@knipp.de>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: last-verified-date


After some careful thinking, I agree with most of your
comments. Specifically, I agree with you that: This
feature SHOULD be an EPP extension, other than an
OPTIONAL element in core EPP spec. 

There are a number of reasons for it to be an EPP

(1) As you correctly pointed out, this feature is of
little use without the detailed policy support. AFAIK,
there is no established policy in this regard. 

(2) Even if specific policy is established, it is
likely that such policy does not apply to all
registries, and hence does not warrant it to be
included in the core EPP spec. We already had a
precedence on this: the <restore> command for delete
redemption grace period. In that case, the policy
picture is far more clearer than this one. The WG made
the decision to support it as an EPP extension since
the policy may not apply to ccTLDs.

(3) As you correctly pointed out, the technical
advantage of doing it as an EPP extension is that core
EPP commands will not be affected. I would further add
that doing so eliminates the need to modify existing
EPP registry data.

In short, I feel uncomfortable to put the cart before
the horses. Supporting this feature through EPP
extension seems to be the _only_ sensible trade-off in
dealing with this potential "policy hell".



--- Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> after thinking a bit about this, I believe that this
> information
>    a) is part of the registry policy
>    b) does not belong the minimum set of necessary
> contact
>       information.
> Therefore I suggest that if a registry wants to
> support this information, it
> should use the extension mechanisms in EPP, i.e. by
> supplying an own contact
> object or by using the <extension> element.
> A general problem with the field is that it does not
> say anthing about the 
> thoroughness of the verification and may mislead the
> recipient - it may
> create 
> trust that it isn't worth. If one wants to avoid
> this, one have to back this
> with detailed registry policy that delegates the
> responsibilities to the 
> registrars, or, much better, to perform the
> verification in the registry
> itself. 
> In this case the data would not appear in the
> create/update requests, but
> only 
> in the info request.
> regards,
> Klaus

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

Home | Date list | Subject list