Re: comments on draft-tan-epp-launchphase-09

Hi Alex,

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Alexander Mayrhofer <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > >- Section 2.3.1: The bottom horizontal line connecting
> > >pendingAllocation, invalid, allocated and rejected confuses the hell
> > >out of me - What is the directionality of that transition, and what are
> > >the decisions where it connects to the other lines?
> >
> > All of the transitions flow down, where an application in
> "pendingAllocation"
> > could transition to either the "allocated" or the "rejected" status.
>  The same
> > thing holds true to the "invalid" status.  An application in the
> "invalid" status
> > could be fixed and transition to the "allocated" status or could
> transition to
> > the "rejected" status.  Does this make sense?  Does anything else need
> to be
> > added?
>
> [Alexander Mayrhofer]
> Hmm... wouldn't an "invalid" application transition back to
> "pendingValidation" in order to get the application fixed, and subsequently
> transition "down straight"? The transition from pendingAllocation to
> rejected sounds logical to me, but the direct transition from invalid to
> allocated not so much. Anyway, since i wasn't involved in all discussions,
> i assume that there's a reason for this "shortcut" - and, i think we should
> be open about the possible transitions, rather than restricting it too much.
>
> So, this reduces my comment on the representation of those transitions?
> Seperate lines to those two states (would create four lines, and they would
> cross in the middle :-/ ), or maybe just some clarifying text?
>
>
I agree that the overlapping lines in the diagram is confusing, so I've
split them:


https://github.com/wil/EPP-Launch-Phase-Extension-Specification/blob/master/draft-tan-epp-launchphase.txt#L396

Is it better?

I believe the "invalid" => "pendingAllocation" transition is meant to
address a fairly common use case in "traditional" (non-TMCH) sunrises where
the trademark validation agent or the registry would edit minor typos
directly after checking with the registrant.

You're right that it's conceivable that a registry might allow registrant
to modify the application object after it failed validation, moving it to
"pendingValidation" status again. However, I don't know how common this use
case is. Thoughts?

.wil

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