RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Edward Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: 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.

I think that's perfectly appropriate.  If implementation experience has
demonstrated that it was a mistake, we can change it.  The question,
though, is what to replace it with?  No restrictions?  Some
restrictions?  Trying to define a set might be a problem.  Not defining
any in the protocol might be better, since that gives registries the
flexibility to do whatever is appropriate in their own operating
environments.

-Scott-