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

Rubens,

My reply is below prefixed with "JG2-".

Jim

________________________________
From: Rubens Kuhl [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:00 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 14:41:000,
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?

James, use cases are part of technical side of this question. There are no use cases that I mentioned that wouldn't fit.
The analogy I make is with yes/no cards to the color-blinded. One could write "green" or "red" in the cards so color-blinded know what card to use (that's what I see happening here), or they could have "yes" and "no" written.

JG2 - I'm still trying to understand what you're saying in relation to the draft-tan-epp-launchphase draft.  We have tried to make it as specific as possible but also to be flexible to support a variety of launches.  Where you get into trouble is if you are too specific or too flexible.  If you have any proposals for text changes to clarify things or more formal XML schema changes, please let us know.
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?

No.

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.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about overlapping registrations during day to day operations of a registry.

JG2 - So you saying the use of applications during the "open" phase, correct?  If so, the draft-tan-epp-launchphase can be used.  If you're talking about a new object type like Blocks or Defensive Registrations, I believe it is best met with a new object mapping.

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.

Agreed. I'll read it and let the group know.

Rubens

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