Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08

s/intercommunication/miscommunication
(bad autocorrect)


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Seth Goldman <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the extension would be preferable. It can serve as a signal of
> intent from the registrar that they know exactly what phase they're
> applying for. I could perhaps envision a scenario where there's
> some intercommunication between the registry and registrar on the ending
> time of sunrise, and the registrar ends up creating an application instead
> of an allocated registration on create.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ben Levac <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>> In an environment where multiple TLDs are hosted on the same server,
>> where TLDs can be in different phases, then it might seem like a good idea
>> to ask the registrar to pass in the <lauch:create> extension to confirm
>> that they know what they are asking for (sunrise application vs landrush
>> application vs registration).  And it might not only be for landrush, but
>> some registries may have multiple sunrise periods where the second sunrise
>> is based on other criteria (belonging to an organization, or to a group for
>> example), and not on Mark data.
>>
>> But I also realize that making the <choice> optional means that we can't
>> rely on XML validation to ensure that those elements are passed for regular
>> ICANN mandated sunrise periods.
>>
>> I would be interested to hear from other registries planning on running
>> landrush phases and whether they feel that an extension would be preferable
>> or not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gould, James [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:21 AM
>> To: Ben Levac; EPP Provreg ([email protected])
>> Subject: Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08
>>
>> Ben,
>>
>> If the registry does not require any additional launch information from
>> the client on the create (mark or notice), then the extension does not need
>> to be passed.  By making the mark or notice optional on the create, the
>> only element passed would be the phase.  Do you believe that passing the
>> phase and requirement the extension will help in the contract between the
>> client and the server for a non-sunrise phase where a notice is not
>> required?  I recommend only adding the extension when it is needed.
>>
>> --
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>>
>> James Gould
>> Principal Software Engineer
>> [email protected]
>>
>> 703-948-3271 (Office)
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> VerisignInc.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/28/13 12:02 PM, "Ben Levac" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Guys,
>> >
>> >Thank you for the updated spec.
>> >
>> >One small comment.  If a registry wishes to use the <launch:create>
>> >extension for landrush, the schema forces us to pass either of
>> ><launch:codeMark>, <smd:signedMark>, <smd:encodedSignedMark> or
>> ><launch:notice>.  However, in most cases, I assume that registries
>> >would not expect any Mark information, and for most cases, no notice
>> >information during the landrush period.  Could we not make those pieces
>> >of information optional by adding a minOccurs = 0 to the choice element?
>> >
>> >I guess another option would be to NOT require the <launch:create> in
>> >landrush since no other pieces of information are required... However,
>> >I feel that it is nice to require it because it confirms that the
>> >registrar knows that he's submitting a domain application as opposed to
>> >a domain registration.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >Ben Levac
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> >Behalf Of Gould, James
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:58 AM
>> >To: EPP Provreg ([email protected])
>> >Subject: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08
>> >
>> >Wil Tan, Gavin Brown and I have updated the Launch Phase EPP Extension
>> >Mapping to Version 08.  You can find the draft at the URL
>> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tan-epp-launchphase-08.  This version
>> >includes the following changes:
>> >
>> >   1.  Added support for use of the launch statuses and poll messaging
>> >for Launch Registrations based on feedback from Sharon Wodjenski and
>> >Trung Tran.
>> >   2.  Incorporated changes based on updates or clarifications in
>> >draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec-01
>> ><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec-01>, which
>> >include:
>> >       1.  Removed the unused <launch:generatedDate> element.
>> >       2.  Removed the <launch:source> element.
>> >       3.  Added the <launch:notAfter> element based on the required
>> ><tmNotice:notAfter> element.
>> >
>> >We are hoping that the draft can be stabilized to help with the
>> >implementations.  Please reply with any feedback.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >JG
>> >
>> >James F. Gould
>> >Verisign
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >provreg mailing list
>> >[email protected]
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
>> >
>> >Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
>> >include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by
>> >Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by
>> >anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and
>> >may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
>> >the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your
>> >system. Thank you.
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >provreg mailing list
>> >[email protected]
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
>>
>>
>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
>> include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand
>> Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other
>> than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>>  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
>> replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
>> _______________________________________________
>> provreg mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
>>
>
>

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