Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08

Option 2 or Option 3 will work for our registrar. Even though Option 2 does not require the launchphase element, our process would treat it as required and would always send the launchphase where possible.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker
319-294-3933 (office)
319-329-9805 (mobile)

Please contact my direct supervisor Rich Merdinger ([email protected]) with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08

From: Ben Levac <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, April 01, 2013 2:15 pm

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Alexander

Mayrhofer <[email protected]>, "Gould, James"

<[email protected]>, Seth Goldman <[email protected]>

Cc: "EPP Provreg ([email protected])" <[email protected]>

Thank you for your response Jeremy. It’s great to get the registrar perspective on this issue.

Just to be clear, option 2 does not “enforce” passing the extension as you drew it out below. It just says that as a registrar, you are free to pass that extension or not. But if you do NOT pass it during the landrush phase, then the request would still be successful, and you would have you would end up with an application, whether you intended to get a GA registration or a landrush application.

Option 3 says that you should always pass the extension below if you are trying to register a landrush application. Otherwise you will get a server error. That way, if a request for a domain registration is sent in error during the landrush phase, you would not be accidentally register the application.

Our main worry is that in an environment where a large number of TLDs are coming on board every week, if there is ever an error made by a registrar regarding the start of Landrush versus GA and they start sending domain registration commands during the landrush phase, there would be nothing stopping those commands from succeeding.

If you “prefer to be explicit about the action we are asking the registry to take.”, then it sounds like option 3 is also better from your perspective?

Cheers,

Ben

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 11:52 AM
To: Alexander Mayrhofer; Gould, James; Seth Goldman; Ben Levac
Cc: EPP Provreg ([email protected])
Subject: RE: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08

This registrar's preference is option 2. We prefer to be explicit about the action we are asking the registry to take. Past experience with TLD launches has shown that landrush and GA generally function quite differently, so it seems that there should be a way to distinguish between a request for a landrush launch:create and a GA create, so we desire the ability to pass in a landrush application as follows, without any additional required elements:

<extension>

<launch:create>

<launch:phase>landrush</launch:phase>

<!-- nothing additional required here -->

</launch:create>

</extension>

For our systems, the introduction of an object type indicator (application/registration) is not necessary. If it were optional in the spec, I'm not certain that we'd use it. I liked Ben's previous statement: "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." Further, we will be parsing the create:response for a 1000 or 1001 as well to confirm that the action that we expected is the action that was performed.

I also agree with the registrar that Seth mentioned regarding the importance of an OTE environment that supports all launch phases.

Thanks,

Jeremy Bushlack
GoDaddy.com
[email protected]
http://www.godaddy.com
319-294-3934

We're hiring!

I value service, simplicity, and facts. How am I doing? Reply to my supervisor, Roger Carney ([email protected] ).

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [provreg] Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08
From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email protected] >
Date: Sun, March 31, 2013 3:06 pm
To: "Gould, James" <[email protected] >, Seth Goldman
<[email protected] >, Ben Levac <[email protected] >
Cc: "EPP Provreg ([email protected] )" <[email protected] >

Option #1 would definitely also work for us, since we try to keep the set of EPP extensions / features as simple as possible [Sadly, often enough *technical* availability of a certain feature tends to *triggers* unneccessary creativity in policy-land :-/ ]. Option #3 is hence undesirable for us.

Alex

Von: Gould, James [ mailto:[email protected] ]
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. März 2013 16:47
An: Alexander Mayrhofer; Seth Goldman; Ben Levac
Cc: EPP Provreg ([email protected] )
Betreff: 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] ] 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:

- 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.

- 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.

- 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:

- Create an application for this domain, otherwise fail.

- Allocate this domain, otherwise fail.

- 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.

----------

_______________________________________________
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