Re: Launch: availability and claims information

James,

I don't agree that the availability check and the claims check should be combined.  They have two separate purposes and therefore are handled via different verbs (check and claims check).  We discussed the separation of the two for a while in the Community Model, so I don't believe that we should consider attempting to combine them at this point.

--

JG

[cid:CCC9A73D-AA5E-46C4-BB5C-356DEDC15F4F]

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email protected]

703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com

From: James Mitchell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:16 AM
To: EPP Provreg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [provreg] Launch: availability and claims information

Jim et al,

It is my opinion that claims and name availability information should be available in one command/response. Registrars may want to know claims information at the time of availability (register a new domain search page) to 1) indicate a different price if claims is present or 2) indicate the name is subject to claims acknowledgement/extra processing, or 3) withhold the name from their name spinner because they have chosen not support claims.

I suggest the claims check command be extended to include an "standalone" attribute with boolean value true indicating availability information is not required, and false indicating that availability information is desired in addition to claims. Servers may choose to support only standalone=true, servers that support standalone=false must support standalone=true. I'm not too keen on the "standalone" name, so please make other suggestions.

I can contribute text if required.

Regards,
James

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