Re: [tmch-tech] FW: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 06
Rubens Kuhl <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Em 26/02/2013, às 12:30:000, Gould, James escreveu: > Rubens, > > Technically draft-tan-epp-launchphase can be used at any point. Technically, yes. But there are contract implications of following or not agreed practices and standards, and there are market implications like having registrars support or not parameters. > Use of signedMark's and use of applications can be used in any of the phases defined in section 2.2 of the draft. I'm not sure the use case that you are describing is a common one, but it can be supported. Reading new gTLD apps showed to me a few business models that won't fit strict-first-come-first-serve-if-no-such-name-exists-create. > > Do you have a description for the proposed "restricted" phase? It's seems Wil Tan would call it "open" instead, but the phase would be the steady state of the registry that doesn't provide synchronous registrations, so application would make more sense than create. > > Good feedback on the statuses. We got a request from Trung Tran that is related, "Remove "pending" and "pendingAuction" in favor of "pendingValidation" and "pendingAllocation", that we wanted to discuss on the list. Do you support Trung's request? Yes, Validation and Allocation are good words to use. > > The name blocking sounds a lot like the Defensive Registration mapping implemented in DotName. In .xxx could there be multiple overlapping blocks similar to the Defensive Registration extension? I don't know the specifics of .xxx, but there is at least one registry I know of where there will be multiple overlapping blocks. That could be implemented by a possible response to "block check" like "registry doesn't support verifying pre-existences of block requests". Rubens _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg