Re: [ietf-provreg] restore report

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

Hi! We are finally finishing the definition of the Registry-Registrar 
Protocol for .pt (thick registry) and we are really thinking about 
implementing the restore mechanism this way. The alternative is to use 
the transfer command the same way : will restore and transfer the domain 
to another registrar.

The main difference is in the concept:
- on a restore command the registrar knows he will pay the 
"reactivation" of the domain
- on a transfer command the registrar is not obligated to do a payment 
for that action (as we only extend expiration dates on renewal)

Which of them do you think to be the better way?

Regards,
Eugenio


Werner Staub wrote:
> Hi Eugenio,
>
> In the case of a thick registry, where the contact information is 
> stored in the registry, all the restore report does is send data to 
> the registry that the registry already has. Therefore, for a thick 
> registry, it is best to eliminate the restore report requirement 
> altogether.
>
> The question of who may restore a domain is an entirely different 
> matter. Your suggestion of allowing restore by another registrar based 
> on the authinfo definitely looks like a good idea to me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> Eugenio Pinto wrote:
>> Hi again!
>>
>> I already know what it is (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3915.txt)
>>
>> What I would like to know now is if any Registry is asking for a 
>> restore report when some registrar issues a restore request?
>>
>> And if you allow another registrar (not the sponsoring registrar) to 
>> issue a restore request using the auth code (given by the registrant) 
>> in order to immediately transfer and also restore that domain in one 
>> step?
>>
>> Is this a bad idea? Do you allow a pendingDelete domain to be 
>> transfered to another registrar in any way?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Eugenio
>>
>>
>> Eugenio Pinto wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> Sorry for the question, but can anyone tell me what is a restore 
>>> report? (what is it for?)