Re: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt

Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org> Thu, 21 January 2016 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
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 B9D721B2A41 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 ESHF2wrA9ooH for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A26F1B2A40 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:06 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:06 -0800
From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRVKPwArcTGiTA+U6BrpMnAmBZhg==
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:32:06 +0000
Message-ID: <D2C6A87C.F0080%gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
References: <20160121193028.13313.82104.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A133A9D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A133A9D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.0.151221
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.35.2]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3536235123_5824829"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/5xmP3aq0Wo4zuOOz3kvaYO58xGc>
Subject: Re: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Jan 2016 23:32:10 -0000

Scott,

I don't think it's a good idea to define the meaning of the
registrar registration expiration date in this specification. The Registrar
Accreditation Agreement 2013
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#wh
ois)
defines that the Whois output of the Registrar must show the "Registrar
Registration
Expiration Date", and the draft Thick Whois Policy
(https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/thick-rdds-consensus-pol
icy-draft-25nov15-en.pdf)
requires this field to be passed to the registry, who in turn will show it.

 
I have seen domains (e.g. whois -h whois.pir.org pir.org / whois
-h whois.godaddy.com pir.org) in the wild in which the registry expiration
date
is different from the registrar expiration date. It appears that sometimes
is
related to an auto-renew that has not been paid by the Registrant, other
cases
appear to be related to the business model of the registrar, etc.
 

>From the I-D perspective, the registrar registration
expiration date is just another data point with no meaning to the
lifecycle of
the domain name. 
 
 
 


Regards,
Gustavo

On 1/21/16, 11:52, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:30 PM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-
>> date-00.txt
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> 
>> 
>>         Title           : Registrar Registration Expiration Date
>> Extension Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>>         Author          : Gustavo Lozano
>> 	Filename        : draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-
>> date-00.txt
>> 	Pages           : 15
>> 	Date            : 2016-01-21
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>>    extension mapping for the provisioning and management of the
>>    registrar registration expiration date for domain names stored in a
>>    shared central repository.  Specified in XML, this mapping extends
>>    the EPP domain name mapping.
>
>Gustavo, I wish this document would explain what this value actually
>means given that registrars are not the authoritative source of
>information for domain expiration dates. Could you please add some text
>to the Introduction that explains the purpose of the value and what it
>means of the context of the expiration date maintained by registries? Can
>they ever be different? What does it mean if they are different? Why are
>both needed if they are supposed to be the same?
>
>I'd also like to suggest that you add text to the different command
>descriptions to make it clear what the values represent when you're
>extending a renew, transfer, etc.
>
>Scott