To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Date:
Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:45:25 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<20050719202848.GL29312@libertyrms.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
At 16:28 -0400 7/19/05, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I can say for sure that we have found some pending states convenient >for some cases. It's particularly useful in ccTLDs, where there can >be an elaborate process review prior to a domain really being >created or updated or whatever. You don't want to hold up the >protocol while you determine whether (for instance) a registrant has >the rights to a domain in that geographic region. (One can think >what one wants about the utility of such policies; but it does seem >to be the policy in some places.) Pending states are definitely useful. I don't think anyone wants to remove them from the protocol. You are right (in text I removed) that preventing other actions while in pendingDelete is questionable. That's what we ought to seek to change. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.