Re: [Crisp] new status for DREG2

On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hmm.  I've seen proposed a case where the policy is actually
> many-valued: compliant, noncompliant, and N/A, for instance.

I'm a little puzzled about N/A.  Wouldn't that just be the absence of  
any compliance/noncompliance status?

> Trademarks are a good case: if the domain is created during one
> period, the trademark has either been checked or not, but if the
> domain is created after that period, nobody cares about the
> trademark.  I suppose one could argue that the "don't care" case is
> compliant anyway, but what about a <policy:> status with <name:>
> substatus and <compliance:> substatus?  Maybe that's overengineering.

I was thinking of having it simply derive from the regular enhanced  
status type.  So it would look like this:

<noncompliant>
   <description language="en">
     Scan detected multiple compliance issues.
   </description>
   <substatus authority="tld.example">
     COMPLIANCE-CODE-X
   </substatus>
   <substatus authority="tld.example">
     COMPLIANCE-CODE-Y
   </substatus>
</noncompliant>

Perhaps changing the element names to <policyCompliance> and  
<policyNoncompliance>.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
Crisp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp