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

Wil,

thanks for fixing the transitions – this makes it much clearer. Regarding your question, i think that the most logical approach would be that a modified „invalid“ application transitions back to „pendingValidation“, since my assumption is that a registry would review those changes in the same manner as it did for the original application. However, this is currently not possible in the flow chart, and i htink that is definitely a problem. Therefore:

In its „purest“ form, the transition from „invalid“ to „pendingAllocation“ should be replaced by a transition from „invalid“ to „pendingValidation“. I understand that in practice Registries will have „shortcuts“ that transition directly from one status to another, and i actually think even with the change i just described (no line from „invalid“ to „pendingAllocation“), it would be possible to create the direct transition in the following way, because:


-          We already have text in the draft that says „Additionally, certain statuses MAY be skipped“.


-          which allows us to create „virtual“ transitions between any phases that are „connected“


Eg. the „pure“ flow for the use case you just described would be:


-          invalid -> pendingValidation -> validated -> pendingAllocation

With skipping certain statuses, this can looke as follows:


-          invalid -> (SKIP pendingValidation) -> (SKIP validated) -> pendingAllocation

Which would exactly create your desired transition. However, in your proposal, it would actually be *impossible* to transition back from „invalid“ to „pendingValidation“ – which might be a very common use case in case of corrections to the applications.

So, i suggest replacing the transitions as outlined above, and maybe add some text  below the diagram that other transitions can be implemented by skipping steps. (such as („Note that other transitions can be achieved by skipping intermediate steps. For example, a transition from „invalid“ to „pendingAllocation“ can be achieved by ....“ (see above))..

comments?

Alex

(and sorry for the crappy quoting.. or, rather, not quoting at all)

Von: Wil Tan [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. April 2013 15:31
An: Alexander Mayrhofer
Cc: Gould, James; [email protected]; [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [provreg] comments on draft-tan-epp-launchphase-09

Hi Alex,

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