Re: [tmch-tech] FW: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 06

Rubens,

Thanks for your feedback.

 I'm looking for something that does not assume applications are only used
> during launch phases. Although this could be viewed as semantics ("just
> keep the TLD in eternal launch"), this has implications.  This would
> require renaming methods such as launch:create to async:create.
>
>
The primary use case supported by our draft is indeed that of launch phases
-- be it initial launch (pilot, sunrise, land rush, etc.) or later
restricted releases such as "newly available IDN language" or "2-character
release". We didn't rule out perpetual async operation though. In fact, the
special case of phase="open" was envisioned for steady-state operation. The
common method for async processing that I know of goes like this:

    The registry requires additional data to be submitted. Once submitted,
the domain is placed in pendingCreate until it is (perhaps manually)
validated. Multiple applications for the same domain is usually not
supported.

In this case, the launch phase extension can be used primarily for
transporting trademark data.

Do you have a different model in mind?



> This would imply in another phase status (section 2.2) called restricted,
> renaming Auction (states values 2.3.1) to Election (which could be auction
> or any process that chose between 2 or more applications), and to
>

A "restricted" phase does sound like a useful value to add.

Election could work quite well since it's more generic. We could go one
step further and just use "processing" to indicate that something is
happening (i.e. replace "pendingAuction" with "processing" in Section
2.3.1).



> dig somewhat further into land rush instead of just mentioning (landrush
> The EPP <create> command with the "landrush" launch phase is undefined but
> the form supported is up to server policy.
> )
>
>
Do you mean we should specify further, or provide more textual description
to guide implementers?



> On a topic that I don't recall seeing either at draft-tan or Chris
> Wright's, is the possibility of asking for name block instead of domain
> creation. This has occurred in .xxx sunrise and some registries could allow
> simultaneous askings in a single phase. This could be some kind of custom
> flag with parameters "registration", "block" and possible expansions to
> include new values.
>
>
This is probably best handled with a separate extension, which can be mixed
in with either our draft or ARI's. That said, if the community feels that
there is value in having it defined in one place, we're open to adding it.

.wil

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