RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: Grace periods

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Antony,

After thinking about this a bit more I think you might be on to something.
It may make more sense to modify this document to make it a general grace
period document since the RGP is itself an ICANN-described grace period.  It
would mean some re-work to make the RGP one of several grace periods, but it
might make more sense than having two documents describing different grace
periods.

I'm at the IETF meeting now if anyone wants to talk about this live.  If
not, I'll think about it some more and see what I can do next week.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Perkov [mailto:antony.perkov@poptel.coop] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:15 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: Grace periods
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> I agree, it wouldn't be the right thing to do to have non RGP 
> stuff in the
> existing document without changing it's name.  I guess I was 
> really asking
> is there an intent to make it a more general "grace periods" 
> document.  As
> you say this may or may not be necessary.
> 
> For clarity, perhaps I should explain my understanding of the 
> "new" grace
> periods suggested in the Deletes Task Force report.  It seems 
> to all boils
> down to: a registrar being able to get a credit / refund for 
> any domain
> creation, renewal, or transfer as long as they delete the 
> domain within 5
> days of the creation, renewal, or transfer (which then leads to the
> redemption grace period except during the add grace period).
> 
> To me the "pending" status values don't really seem to describe this
> situation adequately to a registrar as they don't distinguish between
> "action not finished" and "action refundable".
> 
> I guess the most important thing is that all registries 
> implementing the
> Deletes Task Force's suggested grace periods expose this information
> consistently.  How are other people doing this at the moment?
> 
> Antony. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] 
> > Sent: 04 November 2003 12:31
> > To: 'Antony Perkov'; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> > Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Grace periods
> > 
> > Antony,
> > 
> > No, I have no intention of updating the RGP document to 
> > include descriptions
> > of status values that have nothing to do with the RGP.  There 
> > may, however,
> > be some value in defining a new extension that describes some of the
> > policy-based grace periods that you described below.
> > 
> > But -- there's already a status value to describe what I 
> > think you mean when
> > you say "Transfer grace period".  See the description of the
> > "pendingTransfer" status in the domain draft.  For that 
> > matter, it may make
> > sense to use the other "pending" status values to describe 
> > the add and renew
> > grace periods, as in "this action has been requested but 
> > hasn't yet been
> > fully completed".  Would that make sense?
> > 
> > -Scott-
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Antony Perkov [mailto:antony.perkov@poptel.coop] 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:04 AM
> > > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> > > Cc: shollenbeck@verisign.com
> > > Subject: Grace periods
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Are there any plans to update the 
> > > draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt document
> > > to include status values for grace periods other than 
> "redemption"?
> > > 
> > > I'm interested in status values for the other grace periods 
> > > described at
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030323.DeletesTF-final-report
> > .html which
> > are:
> > 
> > * Add grace period
> > * Auto renew grace period
> > * Renew grace period
> > * Transfer grace period
> > 
> > It seems to me that it would be useful to be able to provide 
> > registrars this
> > information via the <info> command.
> > 
>