RE: Domain expiration and the poll command

You're probably right, the extra details the info response provides could be
useful, especially the ROID. I discounted the info response at first because
it seemed a little fat, but that was probably just premature optimisation on
my part...

Thanks for the response.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gould, James [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 21 May 2004 14:44
> To: 'Antony Perkov'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] Domain expiration and the poll command
> 
> Antony,
> 
> We currently don't send out any expiration notifications, but 
> I agree that
> this is a good idea.  I would either come up with a custom 
> notification
> message or utilize the info response (prior to the delete) 
> along with a
> specific <msgQ> <msg> element like "Expired domain deleted".  
> We came up
> with several different custom notification messages for events like a
> restore command that did not have a report within the 
> required 5 day period.
> The check response would serve as well, but the info response 
> would provide
> more information like the expiration date.     
> 
> JG
> 
> James F. Gould
> VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Antony Perkov
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] Domain expiration and the poll command
> 
> When a domain is deleted due to expiration, what should the 
> service message
> (to be retrieved by the poll command) look like? It seems to 
> me that this
> would be a good thing to have some uniformity on, but I can't 
> work it out
> from the RFC documents.
> 
> Specifically I'm interested in what the resData element 
> should look like.
> The domain:delete response doesn't specify a resData element 
> so that's no
> good. I'm thinking the closest thing might be the resData 
> element for a
> domain:check response. Does this sound reasonable?
>