Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 06

Klaus,

Let me first address your question about mixing validation models.  In section 2.4 "Mark Validation Models", "a server MUST support one of four models for validating the trademark information", which include "code", "mark", "code with mark" and "signed mark".  These are higher level models for the validation of the mark information by the server.  The mixing of validation models will add a great deal of complexity for the clients.  In the case of the gTLD's and the TMCH, the "signed mark" is the model that must be supported.  The other models could be selected for use by ccTLD's or for other custom launches.  

A second question was related to the rationale of submitting multiple marks (or signed marks) with one request.  There might be multiple marks that are applicable for the domain name that can be taken into consideration by the server.  There can be multiple allocation policies used by the servers, so having multiple valid marks for an application can be taken into account based on server policy.  The expected behavior is that the server would validate all passed marks for the domain name.

The last question was related to the reason why the <launch:code> was not integrated into the <mark:mark> element.  I want to point out that SMD draft used the definition of the mark, signed mark, and encoded signed mark as the starting point in cooperation of the three co-authors of the Launch Phase draft (me, Gavin Brown, and Wil Tan).  The separation of concerns was first done in the 04 draft by the creation of the separate launch-1.0, signedMark-1.0, and mark-1.0 XML schemas.  The <launch:code> fell into the launch-1.0 XML schema since it is not an attribute of the mark but is an external element that is used to support some of the higher level validation models ("code" and "code with mark").  The signedMark-1.0 and mark-1.0 XML schemas were moved out into the SMD draft and updated to 
 integrate with the data model of the TMCH.           

Let me know if you have any additional questions or proposals to make things more clear in draft-tan-epp-launchphase.

Thanks,

Jim
 
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Klaus Malorny [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 06

On 26/02/13 15:30, Gould, James wrote:
> Wil Tan, Gavin Brown and I have updated the Launch Phase EPP Extension Mapping
> to Version 06.  The IETF Internet-Draft Submission page is suspended until
> 2013-03-11, so the draft is attached in TXT and HTML format.  We will post the
> draft once the IETF Internet-Draft Submission page opens.  This version includes
> the following changes:
>
>  [...]
>
> Please reply with any feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JG
>
> James Gould
> Verisign
>
>

Hi James,
I just browsed through the schema and asked myself what the rationale could be
to be able to submit multiple marks with one request. What is the processing
expectation? Also, while I can submit multiple, I cannot mix, for example,
codes, unsigned and signed marks.

Another point is the <codeMark> element. As the SMD draft was allegedly
developed with Verisign's input, why was the <code> element not integrated into
the <mark:mark> element of the draft? It violates a bit the principle of the
separation of concerns.


Regards,

Klaus

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