Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08

I like your suggestion, James. We should make it purely optional and only
having the server validate the field if the registrar passes it. That
allows registrars who care the ability to specify it and ensure the correct
behavior, but those that don't care can omit it and not have to worry about
it. And it only imposes a very slight burden on registries to implement
this functionality.


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Ben,
>
>  You would be enforcing that the client knows what they are doing or at
> least that they explicitly express the intent of the command ahead of the
> server implying the intent based on the active phase.  Leaving it up to
> server policy, whether to make it mandatory, will get into that sticky area
> where registrars either must pass it all of the time to work for all
> registries or somehow know whether the registry requires it ahead of time.
>  I believe that it's in the registrar's best interest to explicitly express
> their intent, but I'm not sure if I would make it mandatory.  I recommend
> leaving the decision to the registrar and make it purely optional.  The
> other option is to go with option #3 and make it mandatory across the board
> to remove any confusion for the registrars.
>
>  -- ****
>
>
>
> JG****
>
>  ****
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> James Gould****
>
> Principal Software Engineer****
>
> [email protected]****
>
>  ****
>
> 703-948-3271 (Office)****
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way****
>
> Reston, VA 20190****
>
> VerisignInc.com
>
>   From: Ben Levac <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:15 PM
> To: James Gould <[email protected]>, Alexander Mayrhofer <
> [email protected]>, Seth Goldman <[email protected]>
> Cc: EPP Provreg <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08
>
>    James,****
>
> ** **
>
> I think it should be up to the server policy to decide whether passing the
> parameter to the server for a phase such as landrush or a special sunrise
> is mandatory or not.  We view this parameter as a way to avoid all
> confusion about what the registrar is creating with their create command.
> If we don’t enforce it, then it sort of defeats the purpose. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Ben****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Gould, James [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2013 8:47 AM
> *To:* Alexander Mayrhofer; Seth Goldman; Ben Levac
> *Cc:* EPP Provreg ([email protected])
> *Subject:* Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe that for option #2 it is truly optionally for the Registrars,
> where if the Registrar wants to ensure that the server validates their
> intent ahead of accepting the transaction, then they can pass the
> extension.  By default the server will apply the rules of the active phase
> and will create the object type (registration or application) of the active
> phase.  An example I have of specifying the phase is if a launch used a
> dutch auction, where sub-phases represented the price bands, by default the
> Registrar would get the active price at the time of the transaction.  If
> the Registrar wanted to ensure that they got the registration at the
> desired price band, then they can pass the phase (with the specific
> sub-phase) that would be validated by the server prior to allowing the
> transaction to go through.  The option of specifying the type of object
> (registration or application) is just an indication of the intent of the
> Registrar, that if it does not match what the server will do, can fast
> fail.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> From what I understand option #2 is preferred.  Does anyone disagree with
> including option #2 in the draft? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Our hope was to stabilize the draft with the 08 draft, but this change
> obviously requires an 09 draft.  Since the door is open, are there any
> other desired changes that should be included in the 09 draft?  We really
> need to lock it down to support the implementations, so please review the
> draft and recommend any changes now.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
>  ****
>
> JG****
>
>  ****
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> James Gould****
>
> Principal Software Engineer****
>
> [email protected]****
>
>  ****
>
> 703-948-3271 (Office)****
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way****
>
> Reston, VA 20190****
>
> VerisignInc.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From: *Alexander Mayrhofer <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Friday, March 29, 2013 10:52 AM
> *To: *Seth Goldman <[email protected]>, Ben Levac <
> [email protected]>
> *Cc: *EPP Provreg <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08****
>
> ** **
>
>  I’m with Seth and Ben. #2 is the most flexible solution. ****
>
>  ****
>
> My concern is that „most flexible“ also means „most potential for
> confusion“. Registrars will have to deal with a lots of (different) phases
> with hundreds of registries, and they might lose business just because they
> failed to „label“ a certain transaction with the correct phase. Registries
> would also need to define policy for the case when the phase is not
> identified, so the question of whether or not to „auto-detect“ the correct
> phase needs to be solved in both options #1 and #2. Option #2 allows in
> addition, however, transactions without a phase identifier to be rejected.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Alex.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Von:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
> * Im Auftrag von *Seth Goldman
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 29. März 2013 15:37
> *An:* Ben Levac
> *Cc:* EPP Provreg ([email protected])
> *Betreff:* Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08****
>
>  ****
>
> We also prefer #2. It leaves it open for server policy to dictate whether
> they require clients to specify it or not, so it's the most flexible.****
>
>  ****
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Ben Levac <[email protected]>
> wrote:****
>
> James, Seth,****
>
>  ****
>
> We prefer option #2.    We don’t intend to support  more than one type
> (application/registration) per phase, so I don’t see the need to make the
> object type element (or attribute) mandatory.  We would have to come up
> with a mechanism to make the mark or notice information optional though.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
>  ****
>
> Ben****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Gould, James [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:20 PM
> *To:* Seth Goldman
> *Cc:* Ben Levac; EPP Provreg ([email protected])****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08****
>
>  ****
>
> Seth,****
>
>  ****
>
> I believe that the server will support only an application or a
> registration, but not both,  during a particular phase.  The creation of an
> application by the server will be indicated by the return of the 1001
> result code and the creation of a registration by the server will be
> indicated by the return of a 1000 result code.  This is the same behavior
> when dealing with registries that do or don't support the pendingCreate in
> RFC 5731.  With support of the launch extension, the create response will
> return the launch extension with the application identifier for an
> application as well.  The question is whether the client should or be
> required to explicitly pass the launch extension with the applicable launch
> phase when the mark or notice is not needed.  If so, should the client also
> explicitly specify whether the intent is to create an application or a
> registration.  If the active phase of the server does not support the
> intent of the client (phase and application/registration) the server should
> fail the command.  As defined now, the client can not pass the launch
> extension  when the mark or notice is not required on create, and the
> server will create the appropriate object (application or registration)
> based on the active phase.    ****
>
>  ****
>
> Should we do the following:****
>
>    1. Leave the draft, where the client only passes the extension when
>    the mark or notice information is needed.  The server will create the
>    appropriate object (application or registration) based on the active phase
>    and return the appropriate result code (1001 or 1000) and optionally with
>    the launch phase extension.  ****
>    2. Update the draft to support the option for the client to explicitly
>    define the intended phase and optionally the intended object type
>    (application or registration) in the extension to create.  The server will
>    fail the command if the specified phase does not match and the specified
>    object type does not match.  ****
>    3. Update the draft to require the client to explicitly define
>    the intended phase and intended object type (application or registration)
>    in the extension to create.  The server will fail the command if the
>    specified phase does not match and the specified object type does not match.
>    ****
>
>  I prefer #1 and between #2 and #3, I prefer #2.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Are there any other options that should be considered?  Which option is
> preferred?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> -- ****
>
>  ****
>
> JG****
>
>  ****
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> James Gould****
>
> Principal Software Engineer****
>
> [email protected]****
>
>  ****
>
> 703-948-3271 (Office)****
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way****
>
> Reston, VA 20190****
>
> VerisignInc.com****
>
>  ****
>
> *From: *Seth Goldman <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:31 PM
> *To: *James Gould <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *Ben Levac <[email protected]>, EPP Provreg <
> [email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08****
>
>  ****
>
>   True, the phase may not be sufficient. I guess there are three possible
> values here:****
>
>    1. Create an application for this domain, otherwise fail.****
>    2. Allocate this domain, otherwise fail. ****
>    3. Allocate this domain if possible; otherwise create an application.**
>    **
>
>  If registrars are fine with 3) being the default behavior, then there's
> no need for them to signal their intent. If they would ever want 1) or 2),
> though, then we should make their intent explicit. I was imagining they 1)
> or 2) to be desireable because 3) seems like a bad customer experience. But
> I'm just speculating, and I don't have any special insight here.****
>
>  ****
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote:
> ****
>
> Seth & Ben,****
>
>  ****
>
> Being explicit is certainly good.  Do the Registrars have an issue
> with the registries requiring the extension to be passed as a form of
> signaling the intent for creates during the launch phases?  If so, should
> an element or attribute be added on the create to indicate whether the
> intent is to create an application or registration?  The phase alone might
> not define the intent.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> -- ****
>
>  ****
>
> JG****
>
>  ****
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> James Gould****
>
> Principal Software Engineer****
>
> [email protected]****
>
>  ****
>
> 703-948-3271 (Office)****
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way****
>
> Reston, VA 20190****
>
> VerisignInc.com****
>
>  ****
>
> *From: *Seth Goldman <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:49 PM
> *To: *Ben Levac <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *James Gould <[email protected]>, EPP Provreg <[email protected]> **
> **
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08****
>
>  ****
>
>   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****
>
>  ****
>
>    ****
>
>    ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> 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.****
>
>  ****
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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