Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 08

On 02/04/13 14:32, Gould, James wrote:
> Rubens,
>
> Are you saying that the server should not be required to validate the properties
> passed or that the server should not require the extension?  The options that we
> have been discussing thus far include:
>
>  1. Option 1 – Leave it as is, meaning the extension can only be passed when the
>     mark or notice is required.
>  2. Option 2 – The extension is optional when the mark and notice is not required
>      1. Option 2b – Option 2 plus the server is required to validate what is passed
>  3. Option 3 – The extension is required for all non-open phases and the server
>     is required to validate what is passed
>  4. Option 4 – The extension is optional when the mark and notice is not
>     required, but may be required based on registry policy.
>      1. Option 4b - Option 4 plus the server is required to validate what is passed
>
> I added an Option 4 and Option 4b if we cannot come to consensus on the server
> behavior.  Which option do you support or do you have any more options for
> consideration?
>
> --
>
> JG


Hi James, all,

hard to catch up with all the e-mails sent the last days... To add my two cents, 
if anyone is interested in: My concern is that a registrar issues a normal 
domain:create request without any (launch phase) extensions and does not get 
what he expects, namely an application for a domain instead of a domain 
registration. The matter is hereby less whether the registration is pending or 
immediate, but whether there is a potential contention between this request and 
other requests for the same name (which will be eventually resolved by some 
means, e.g. auctions), whether there might be a different price tag attached to 
the operation and whether there are suddenly other obligations to the registrar 
or registrant (e.g. participating in the mentioned auctions). The operation 
should IMHO be predictable, a mere change of the domain name (e.g. using a newly 
introduced IDN character) should not determine whether this is a registration or 
application.

Insofar, to support applications without the need of the submission of trademark 
data, I tend to prefer option 3.

In respect of changing the number of occurrences of the <choice> element to 
zero, one could consider to add a element wildcard to the choice (i.e. e.g. <any 
namespace="##other" process-contents="strict">), just to allow other data as 
well. Currently, we do not have a use case for this, but we don't know whether 
we will have one sometime in the future, and maybe other registries have a use 
case right now.


Regards,

Klaus








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