Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP domain:transfer

[Eugenio Pinto <eugenio.pinto@fccn.pt>]

Patrycja Wegrzynowicz wrote:

> Gerhard Winkler wrote:
> > For clarification (maybe I was too short in my explanation):
> > the token, generated by the registry, is sent to the registrant, and
> > for confirmation the registrant has to send the token to the
> > gaining registrar (who has initiated the transfer also).
> > The losing registrar doesn't play any role in our transfer process
> > (except of receiving notifications of course).
>
> Hi Gerhard,
>
> Scott's proposal sounds very fine for your case; although I'd like to 
> put my 2 cents to your problem. ;)
>
> 1. Considering Scott's approach one MINOR note to mention:
> <domain:update> command must be sent by the registrar which is
> not the sponsoring client. It's only the minor note as according to EPP
> standard the restriction of this action to the sponsoring client is only
> recommended. However, worth to keep this in mind.
>
> 2. Your transfer process seems a lot like ours (.PL registry). .PL also
> requires the registrant to confirm/authorize the transfer request.
> Although the implementation is a bit different from yours proposal:
> - the gaining registrar sends <domain:transfer> request
> - the registry sends email with 'confirmation link' to the registrant
> - the registrant clicks 'confirmation link' and then the transfer is done
>
> As you see we decided to skip forwarding token forth-and-back in the
> registry/registrar/registrant circle. From the semantic point of view
> IMO it's more clear since such round-trip seems redundant. I see some
> possible explanations of the 'token' approach... although it's more
> question to you... what are your reasons behind having token approach
> instead of, for example, direct confirmation?
>
> Best,
> Patrycja
>
Hi!

We, at the .PT Registry, are doing the same way as described in point 2.

It seemed to be the best aproach to us.

Best Regards,

Goncalves Pinto