[gtld-tech] [eppext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt
rubensk at nic.br
Thu Jan 21 23:32:45 UTC 2016
It's possible that Jim and Scott were looking at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en> to find an in-force consensus policy covering such requirement. I tried finding it there as well and failed as well... that is consistent with the information that although the policy was approved by GNSO Council and the Board (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-02-07-en#2.c <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-02-07-en#2.c>) has still not come through with its IRT (Implementation Review Team), which is why the document is still in public comment and the policy is still a draft.
So, perhaps the I-D is a few weeks premature and the registries opposing it might see first whether that really becomes in-force ?
I also wander what happened to the reseller information relaying, which was foreseen in the policy...
> Em 21 de jan de 2016, à(s) 20:51:000, Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org> escreveu:
> Hi Jim,
> Please see https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/thick-rdds-consensus-policy-draft-25nov15-en.pdf <https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/thick-rdds-consensus-policy-draft-25nov15-en.pdf>, particularly section 2.1, starting on page 8. This document is in public comment at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en> until 31 January.
> The draft provides a reference to the “parent” document of the aforementioned document, which is already in final form. Perhaps the reference in the draft should be to the child document?
> On 1/21/16, 12:08 PM, "EppExt on behalf of Gould, James" <eppext-bounces at ietf.org <mailto:eppext-bounces at ietf.org> on behalf of JGould at verisign.com <mailto:JGould at verisign.com>> wrote:
>> I agree with Scott, it is not clear the relationship between the two and the relevance in the registry of maintaining this value. Can the registrar expiration date be greater then the domain expiration date, less then the domain expiration date, or completely different from the domain expiration date? The reference for the ThickWhoisPolicy is incorrect in the draft. Please provide the appropriate reference and highlight where in the Thick Whois Policy it defines the requirement for the registry to hold and display a registrar expiration date in addition to the authoritative domain expiration date.
>> James Gould
>> Distinguished Engineer
>> jgould at Verisign.com <x-msg://42/jgould@Verisign.com>
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck at verisign.com <mailto:shollenbeck at verisign.com>> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces at ietf.org <mailto:i-d-announce-bounces at ietf.org>] On Behalf Of
>>>> internet-drafts at ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts at ietf.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:30 PM
>>>> To: i-d-announce at ietf.org <mailto:i-d-announce at ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>> Title : Registrar Registration Expiration Date
>>>> Extension Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>>>> Author : Gustavo Lozano
>>>> Filename : draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-
>>>> Pages : 15
>>>> Date : 2016-01-21
>>>> This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>>>> extension mapping for the provisioning and management of the
>>>> registrar registration expiration date for domain names stored in a
>>>> shared central repository. Specified in XML, this mapping extends
>>>> the EPP domain name mapping.
>>> Gustavo, I wish this document would explain what this value actually means given that registrars are not the authoritative source of information for domain expiration dates. Could you please add some text to the Introduction that explains the purpose of the value and what it means of the context of the expiration date maintained by registries? Can they ever be different? What does it mean if they are different? Why are both needed if they are supposed to be the same?
>>> I'd also like to suggest that you add text to the different command descriptions to make it clear what the values represent when you're extending a renew, transfer, etc.
>>> EppExt mailing list
>>> EppExt at ietf.org <mailto:EppExt at ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt at ietf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gtld-tech