Re: Launch: availability and claims information

Seth,

That is correct, the flow discussed in the Community Model was to first do an availability check (with or without name spinning) and then only do claims check on domain names of interest during the purchase flow to know whether to present the claims notice or not.  The bulk of the checks should be availability checks with no need for the claims information.

--

JG

[cid:0BC50664-483F-475E-AA34-6EADD5F24AE3]

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email protected]

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

From: Seth Goldman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:42 AM
To: James Gould <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, EPP Provreg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [provreg] Launch: availability and claims information

Depending on the backend architecture, it's possible that separating the two will also put less load on the registry. I could imagine that a registrar would perform availability checks for lots domains, but only do claims check on a subset that the registrant expresses interest in.

Though I'll admit that should not be the primary consideration here.


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Gould, James <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

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