Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/p roposal

[Patrick <pat+ietf@patoche.org>]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:09:30PM -0500, Gould, James took time to write:
> Any Registrar feedback?  The three options right now include:

I am not working in a Registrar right now, but was 6 months ago, and
hope to be soon again. I implemented RRP & EPP clients for 5
registries back then, and still working on this open source project.

> RGP as renew command-response extension.  The typical use case is:
> 1. Domain is auto renewed
> 2. Registrar deletes Domain via a <domain:delete>
> 3. Registrar sends a <domain:renew> with a <domain:period> of 0 (supporting
> a period is registry specific) with the rgp request extension
> 4. Registrar sends a <domain:renew> with a <domain:period> of 0 with the rgp
> report extension
> 5. Domain is ok

(I find the domain:period=0 to be a awful hack)

[..]

> RGP as protocol extension.  The typical use case is:
> 1. Domain is auto renewed
> 2. Registrar deletes Domain via a <domain:delete>
> 3. Registrar sends an <rgp:request> with an optional <rgp:period> element.
> 4. Registrar sends an <rgp:report>
> 5. Domain is ok

For me, this is the cleaner way, since RGP is a totally new feature.
We could imagine that it is used for contacts[1], for example, and then
domain:renew would not apply easily. Ditto for any other objects
managed at the Registry.

[1] with new requirements to check contacts' validity, we can imagine
that someone would like to work as: when a contact is not validated,
delete it, but then provide the functionnality of a restore, as a
last chance.

-- 
Patrick.
``Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level,
then beat you with experience.''