Re: [ietf-provreg] Registry Escrow Information as EPP Spec?

[Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:02:10PM -0000, Dan Maharry wrote:

> the registry coming up this year, it seems an excellent time to address
> the escrow schema ICANN gave us last time which was actually invalid for
> several reasons.

Aside from the XML problems with the escrow spec, I have the
reservation that the escrow requirements (or at least, the ones I've
had to comply with) wouldn't actually allow one to rebuild the
registry if one were reduced to using it.  My own view is that it is
inadequate, therefore.

But that's really more of a contractual issue, and not a strict
matter of EPP.  It seems to me that you _could_ represent most of the
content of an EPP-provisioned registry simply by outputting all of
the EPP commands necessary to generate the content of the registry. 
Whether the storage required for that would be worth the bother is a
matter of policy, it seems to me.

>  - With the escrow information for registrars almost identical to that
> for domains, hosts and contacts, why aren't registrars regarded as EPP
> objects.

I think because using "registrars" is probably a local policy issue. 
I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to seeing an object mapping
for registrars, but I might be wrong about that.  I'd be very
surprised, however, if anyone wanted to put such a document on the
standards track.  (On the other hand, we already have a
standards-track document for the ICANN RGP policy, so maybe people
would like such a draft.  But keep in mind that the point of the
protocol is interoperation.  I presume that nobody except your own
staff creates registrars in your registry.  Of course, perhaps a
registry registrars is what we need, in which case interoperation
would seem to be an issue.)

>  - Should reserved domain names be regarded as domains in EPP as well? I
> would have thought Yes.

Again, since the point of the protocol is not to specify policy, you
could handle this however you like.  One could argue that a
combination of serverDeleteProhibited and serverUpdateProhibited (and
maybe serverRenewProhibited?) amounts to a "reserved" domain name. 
But in any case, if you need more, that is what extensions are for.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110