Custom phases with claims

Jim,

You have long been a proponent for having clients provide "claims" and "landrush" in the phase element (to my disagreement). Since you require clients specify both, how would you represent a "custom" phase that requires claims processing given the "name" attribute cannot be used to specify the sub-phase?

My preference is to remove "claims" as a phase as it provides _zero_ value to the protocol, and retire the need to provide sub-phase information during claims. Claims information may be provided with other phases (landrush, open) without explicitly providing a "claims" phase value, and servers have to code for missing claims information regardless (e.g. It is possible to provide "sunrise" with claims information, and "claims"  with mark information).

I also dislike the use of the term "custom" - registries will operate sunrises differently; those different sunrises are by definition custom. IMO the schema-level restriction on phase values provides no value to the protocol itself. I would like to see the phase enumeration removed, replaced instead with unrestricted "token" strings. The mapping document can reserve the existing values (sunrise, landrush, open) as having special meaning if you feel it is necessary.

Regards,
James

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