Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Thu, 08 January 2015 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F309F1A1A76 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:24:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RXDW8190ZFSy for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og109.obsmtp.com (exprod6og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957C61A1A30 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([72.13.63.42]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob109.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVK7nXoY1w5VD2kC9KKl6Equk3S0X8WNQ@postini.com; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:24:02 PST
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t08KNvqM025876 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:23:58 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:23:57 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Francisco Obispo <fobispo@uniregistry.com>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
Thread-Index: AQHQK2YwQl5JVElI9UChfyCYUoIA/Jy20n+AgAAe+YCAAAk6AIAABGEA
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 20:23:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CF36E711-27BD-47A6-938E-B9B1804DFD0E@verisign.com>
References: <D0D41AB9.46E54%trung.tran@neustar.biz> <64BB8C0B-ED45-4384-AC10-BC0E5206E26E@uniregistry.com> <B392E842-86BF-4F1E-96FC-ED2EA7E19F6D@verisign.com> <D5A4D4D5-C37A-442D-981B-3381483A292B@uniregistry.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5A4D4D5-C37A-442D-981B-3381483A292B@uniregistry.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_CF36E71127BD47A6938EB9B1804DFD0Everisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/2JdNTQJ5sV5scrLy9vdz95JU5Uw>
Cc: Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com>, "Tran, Trung" <Trung.Tran@neustar.biz>, "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:24:07 -0000

Francisco,

I would have gone with the sub-phase approach as well, since if the behavior between the two claims phases are consistent (e.g. requirement for claims check and claims notice) I’m not sure the value in defining a new top-level phase name.  Is there a material behavior change between the two phases and is the concept of an extended claims phase a generic use case?  We have stuck with the standard set of “sunrise”, “claims”, and “open” phases.  Have others utilized the use of sub-phases or have created custom top-level phase names to meet their needs?  If so, can you share your scheme?  It would be good to know if there are any common patterns.

Thanks,


—


JG


[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Jan 8, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Francisco Obispo <fobispo@uniregistry.com<mailto:fobispo@uniregistry.com>> wrote:

<launch:phase>  SHOULD contain the value of "claims" to indicate the
       claims launch phase.  A value other than "claims" MAY be used to
pass the claims notice for domain names outside of the claims phase.


Once a TLD has ended the mandatory 90 day period of “claims” a registry might decide to call it something else.

We are not supporting extended claims, but we had to support an extended sunrise for the names on the ICANN names-collision block list (30 day period instead of a 60 day end-date sunrise), and we initially thought about having a phase called “sunrise” with a sub-phase called “extended” but we thought it would be too complicated for RARs to change their code, so we decided just to trigger it by calling the phase “sunsrise”, but in reality, a registry can call it anything they want in order to support it, because they are different things.

Since there is no guidance on what the phases should be called, it seems like we’re going to end up with discrete phase names for anything that is not: claims or sunrise.


On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>> wrote:

What do you mean by the extended claims phase?  Is there a past mail list thread on this or is this a new issue?  Please clarify.


Francisco Obispo
CTO - Registry Operations

<Mail Attachment.png>


2161 San Joaquin Hills Rd.
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
off. +1.345.749.6284
fax. +1.345.746.6263