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

Gustavo Lozano <> Thu, 21 January 2016 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D721B2A41 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESHF2wrA9ooH for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A26F1B2A40 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:06 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:32:06 -0800
From: Gustavo Lozano <>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>, "" <>
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: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3536235123_5824829"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:32:10 -0000


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
defines that the Whois output of the Registrar must show the "Registrar
Expiration Date", and the draft Thick Whois Policy
requires this field to be passed to the registry, who in turn will show it.

I have seen domains (e.g. whois -h / whois
-h in the wild in which the registry expiration
is different from the registrar expiration date. It appears that sometimes
related to an auto-renew that has not been paid by the Registrant, other
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. 


On 1/21/16, 11:52, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: I-D-Announce [] On Behalf Of
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:30 PM
>> To:
>> 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.