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

Rubins,

My feedback is below prefixed with "JG-".

Jim

________________________________
From: Rubens Kuhl [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Gould, James
Cc: [email protected] ([email protected]); EPP Provreg ([email protected])
Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] FW: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 06


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.

JG- I'm not sure if I understand this.  Can you describe a use case where the draft-tan-epp-launchphase cannot be used?

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.

JG - The draft-tan-epp-launchphase supports both FCFS, which is referred to as registrations, as well as asynchronous applications.  Is there an issue that you believe the draft-tan-epp-launch can not handle as defined?


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.

JG - Are you talking about a registry that uses a pendingCreate of RFC 5731?  There is no need to a new extension for registries that support the pendingCreate, since it is already fully supported by RFC 5731. The use of an application in combination with pendingCreate is only needed if there can be overlapping registrations, which again is supported by draft-tan-epp-launchphase.


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.

JG - It's sounds like use of the pendingValidation and pendingAllocation statuses work for you.


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".

JG - Blocks or Defensive Registrations sound like new objects that would use an EPP extension in place of an extension to domain.  The Defensive Registration Mapping for DotName is available at the URL http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/defensive-registration-mapping.pdf.  The Defensive Registration Mapping went meant to support blocks and there could be multiple overlapping defensive registrations for the same domain strings.



Rubens

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