RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Hong,


> As I explained in another email, even from a technical perspective,
> adding this element is not as trivial as you described above. I would
> not repeat why it is different than "fax" here.

it sounds like you are policy adverse and have a preconceived notion on
how Neulevel would handle the policy. Since your organization is lobbing
the USG for .kids.us I am sure you have been involved in some policy
development.

> If it is in the base protocol, all registries will have to deal with
> it, whether they support it or not, in order to be EPP compliant. The
> business logic for registry policy will be driven down to the element
> level. We should try to avoid such design if we have an alternative.

Are you suggesting all registries do not have old, stale and out dated
registrant contact data and that end-users should not have access to the
accuracy of the data and that this should not be in the base protocol?

What appears to be happening is that some registry operators are more
concerned about the inconvenience of "public service" than publishing and
ensuring accurate information within their data sets.

Are you are advocating the publishing of inaccurate information as a BCP
as long as there is no way of knowing if the information is accurate or
not? And that adding a mechanism like last-verified-date would require
that some registry operators acknowledge that there is a problem?

-rick