Re: Changes we'd make to EPP

On 17/01/12 18:12, Klaus Malorny 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.

That's effectively what AFNIC do with their GC mechanism, but the lack of
notification is a bit of an irritation because it's easy for the registrar
to lose track of when the contact actually expires.

The notification--which can be ignored if the registrar wishes--means that the
registry's exact policy on when GC happens has no effect on the registrar,
which is very much advantageous.

I think it's best to think of *:check commands as putting a stay of execution
on the object, given they're essentially a signal that the registrar wishes
to use the object within a very short amount of time. If a registrar performs
a *:check and the registrar responds that said GC-able object exists, that
ought to guarantee that the the object is still around for enough time for it
to be used, maybe fifteen minutes.

K.

-- 
Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer
PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. <http://blacknight.com/>
12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland
Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg