Re: Recombining the claims1 and claims2 phases to the claims phase in draft-tan-epp-launchphase?

The word "subphase" bothers me a bit, since it carries with it the notion
that it's subordinate to the main phase. But that may not be the case; it
could just be that the phases have some partial overlap with no fixed
relationship between them.

Perhaps it would be better to just to express this as multiple "phase"
elements?
On Apr 9, 2013 6:23 AM, "Gould, James" <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Alexander,
>
>  Yes the overlap of the phases is an open issue.  My thought is that
> based on the use of the claims check and the extra validation and
> properties required on the create that the primary phase should be
> "claims".  The sub-phase could be used  to express an overlapping phase
> like landrush.  Outside of the TMCH model, landrush should be a first class
> phase, so the thought is to leave it as a primary phase for non-TMCH
> launches like for ccTLDs.  Since the definition of the sub-phase should be
> flexible, maybe for the overlap we just add some text to the draft defining
> the recommended approach for this.  Should landrush as a sub-phase of
> claims be the recommended approach?  Are there any other recommendations in
> dealing with the likely overlapping phases in the TMCH model?
>
> JG
>
>  James F. Gould
> Principal Engineer
> Verisign
>
>  [email protected]
>
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 3:39 AM, "Alexander Mayrhofer" <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>   James,****
>
> ** **
>
> I agree that it doesn’t make sense to keep the two distinct „claims“ phase
> identifiers in the draft, and hence support (at least) merging them. ****
>
> ** **
>
> On a more general note, i think there’s a layering problem with the
> „claims“ phase notion in general. Since the time phase during which Claims
> Services are required to be active might span several other „phases“,
> during which the client has no choice than provide the claims notice
> information (or be refused registrations). ****
>
> ** **
>
> For example, a registry might want to do the following sequence: ****
>
> ** **
>
> sunrise(30d) – custom (30d) – landrush/auction (30d) - open****
>
> ** **
>
> Applying ICANN‘s most recent TMCH RPMs to the example above, Claims
> services would be required for custom (assuming it’s a „limited
> registration period“), landrush, and then at least first 60d of the open
> registration period (. So the „claims“ phase label would actually be an
> independent „property“ of the full time span of the custom and landrush
> phases, and the first 60d of the open registration.  In some cases, Claims
> services might be active for just part of an phase.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, if „claims“ is just a name of a phase, fine. It would probably not be
> used in the startup sequence outlined above. But if „claims“ would be
> required if claims services are active, i don’t see how the above sequence
> could be expressed using the available names. An option would be to reduce
> the „claims“ phase to an attribute of all phases, such as:****
>
> ** **
>
> <launch:phase claims=‘active‘>custom</launch:phase>****
>
> ** **
>
> But, coming back to my original point: There is almost zero risk when a
> client fails to designate to the server that claims services are active.
> Worst that can happen is that the server refuses the transaction because of
> a claims notice information. Which means that we could probably even drop
> the „claims“ phase designation entirely?****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m not asking for any of these changes to be applied to the document –
> this is supposed to be food for though... Comments?****
>
> ** **
>
> Alex****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>]
> *Im Auftrag von *Gould, James
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 08. April 2013 21:29
> *An:* EPP Provreg
> *Betreff:* [provreg] Recombining the claims1 and claims2 phases to the
> claims phase in draft-tan-epp-launchphase?****
>
> ** **
>
> We are currently working on the draft-tan-epp-launchphase-09 updates and
> wanted to know what the list felt about replacing the "claims1" and
> "claims2" phases with simply the "claims" phase.  The split of "claims" to
> "claims1" and "claims2" occurred after the LA meeting in the 04 draft.
>  Since draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec doesn't reference claims2, it doesn't
> seem to make sense to continue to reference it within
> draft-tan-epp-launchphase and recombine "claims1" and "claims2" into
> "claims".  Please post your thoughts to the list or privately on this
> potential change.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
>  ****
>
> JG****
>
>  ****
>
> <image001.png>****
>
>  ****
>
> James Gould****
>
> Principal Software Engineer****
>
> [email protected]****
>
>  ****
>
> 703-948-3271 (Office)****
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way****
>
> Reston, VA 20190****
>
> VerisignInc.com****
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.” ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> provreg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
>
>

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