To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Daniel Manley <dmanley@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:13:13 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<028701c2f97d$cf05b080$8c7a4b0a@neteka.inc>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030212
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] pendingCreate should allow domain update
I can see an application of your point Edmon. What if the pendingCreate thing is rejected? Is the object deleted and the registrar notified through a PAN? This would leave the object open for creation from another registrant (at the same registrar or a different one). Is that fair (maybe it is, maybe it isn't)? If the answer is always to approve it with then a serverHold status, doesn't that defeat the purpose of "pendingCreate"? Dan Edmon Chung wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> > > >>2. Approve the request and require an update (using a status like >>serverHold) before you allow the domain to go "active". >> >> > >This is a good suggestion I suppose. > >Edmon > > >