Re: Changes we'd make to EPP

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Klaus Malorny <[email protected]> wrote:
> - 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.

I kind of like that, though I have a somewhat different implementation
thought, basically tying the expiration date to whether or not the
contact is linked.

- Upon creation of a contact, it is initially not linked to anything.
Registry ties in an expiration date, and I have no disagreement with
the notion of that being 1 year in the future.

- Upon linking a contact to an object (e.g. - to a domain), that
establishes LINKED status.  This *removes* that expiration date.

- Any time a domain becomes unlinked (e.g. - the last link to a domain
or other object disappears), the registry ties in an expiration date
again.  The clock is ticking on its removal.

It seems preferable to me to not have an expiry date when there is no
reason to want one.

The semantics of what that date means and how it should be manipulated
seem rather strange at times when the contact is being 'actively
used.'  And if it's there, and reported, it seems likely to cause
confusion.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg