Re: [Crisp] new status for DREG2

George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net> Tue, 21 March 2006 15:25 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLijH-0003yF-UC; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:25:03 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLijG-0003yA-O9 for crisp@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:25:02 -0500
Received: from mint.apnic.net ([202.12.29.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLijF-0003sP-Ag for crisp@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:25:02 -0500
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (DHCP-Wireless-128-252.ietf65.org [130.129.128.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mint.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C51FD5F2D; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:24:59 +1000 (EST)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:24:54 -0600
From: George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Subject: Re: [Crisp] new status for DREG2
Message-ID: <20060321092454.03ea09d2@garlique>
In-Reply-To: <6CEB55DE-2DD5-463B-BE15-145B241D8DCF@hxr.us>
References: <6CEB55DE-2DD5-463B-BE15-145B241D8DCF@hxr.us>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i386--netbsdelf)
X-Fruit-Of-The-Month-Club: persimmon
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc: crisp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:16:07 -0500
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:

> I had a meeting with an sTLD operator last week where it was brought  
> to my attention that they would like to mark domains with a status  
> indicating compliance with regulations not directly related to the  
> actual domain registration process... as in, they have conducted a  
> compliance check and have found that a domain holder's web site
> meets certain accessibility requirements or internationalization  
> requirements, etc...
> 
> To do what they would like, I think we should add a <compliant:> and  
> <noncompliant> enhanced status to the base enhanced status set in  
> DREG2.  The substatus and related authority would indicate the type  
> of compliance.
> 
> Any comments?

who gets to set it? the data originator, or the data(base) manager
or ...

is it revised after the event? does it require differential ACL?

-George


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