Re: Changes we'd make to EPP

On 17/01/12 18:44, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote:
> You are right about synchronization, the registry needs to inform the
> registrar what its doing.  Not sure the poll queue is a viable mechanism
> for that, but its the closest thing we have right now. We can do better
> though.
>
> This is definitely an area that should be worked on, some of the new
> registry use cases introduce new/additional contact types increasing the
> problem size.
>
> -M

Hi all,

interesting discussion so far, just want to throw in two points

- depending on the data protection regulations of the country in which
   the registry is located, unused personal data needs to be deleted
   after some time. So registries may actually have no other choice
   if they take data protection serious.

- I just had an insane idea to avoid poll messages about the deletion of
   contacts -- you may forget it just after you have finished
   reading it (or even before): One could introduce an expiration date for
   contacts. If a contact is created, it is set to one year in the future.
   As long as the contact is used at least by one object, it is automatically
   renewed, let's say a quarter before it expires. The registrar can either
   track the expiration date (and perform a contact:info/check to check
   its existence in case his recorded expiration date is in the past)
   or simply create new contacts, as many registrars do it today.
   For the registry, if the contact passes its expiration date, it is
   simply deleted by the registry without any further fuss.

   There are also some design options to keep the effort in the registrar's
   database low, e.g. synthesize the expiration date dynamically while the
   contact is being used.

Regards,

Klaus


_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg