Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

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

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:47:50PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughts, Ed.
> 
> > I talked this over with the developers in-house - I'd (we'd) 
> > recommend altering the pendingDelete rule (first option).
> 
> That's what I originally intended with 3915, but it may mean a text
> change to 3731 to ensure that the intention is clear.  Not necessarily a
> big deal.

Something that isn't clear to me -- and I know that Janusz disagrees
with me about this, and I'm not even sure what I think about it
myself -- but why does the pendingDelete status prevent other changes
on a domain?  If you want to prevent updates, why not add
serverUpdateProhibited too?  (The same goes for other pending status
values, and other objects.)

> If I remember correctly (and it's possible I won't), all of the
> "pending" stuff was added as a result of people wanting to allow some
> sort of offline review/processing before some "final" state was entered.

Well, it's worth noting that the earliest I-D I have a copy of
(draft-ietf-provreg-epp-domain-00.txt) defines pendingDelete,
pendingTransfer, and pendingVerification, which seems to lend
credence to that memory.

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.)

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