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

Francisco Arias <> Fri, 22 January 2016 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80871A903C for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:03:04 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 BA9UeTgJbokw for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:03:02 -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 0BEBF1A89FE for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:03:00 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:03:00 -0800
From: Francisco Arias <>
To: "Gould, James" <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRVII5CddH1x7oPEyvfpfQ7AYzkZ8GX2rQgABaQAD//9n8gIABU1gAgABCEIA=
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:02:59 +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/mixed; boundary="_004_57594B966E46470487812B7A90636297icannorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:03:04 -0000

Hi Jim,

If you have any concern regarding the draft Thick Whois policy language, I’d suggest you to participate in the public comment forum at The public comment period ends in about a week on 31-Jan.



On 1/22/16, 6:06 AM, "Gould, James" <<>> wrote:


What is contained in section 2.1 of “Draft Thick RDDS (Whois) Consensus Policy” assumes that the Consensus Policy requires the display of the “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” field as a separate and additive value to the existing “Registry Expiry Date” field.   The only reference to the “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” in the Consensus Policy is provided in the sample Whois output of section 1.4.2 of the RAA.  There is a single expiration date field in the RAA ( “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” ), in the Consensus Policy ( “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” ), and in the RA ( “Registry Expiry Date” ).

There is no mention of a second expiration date field or its meaning in any of the agreements or the Consensus Policy.  There is also no description of the “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” in the RAA or Consensus Policy.  I believe it is a reach to assume that the “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” field in the RAA and the Consensus Policy has a different purpose then the “Registry Expiry Date” field in the RA.  In fact the value of these fields are exactly the same "2010-10-08T00:44:59Z” across all three.  A sample does not make a specification in any of these documents, and there is no basis to make the case that the “Registrar Registration Expiration Date” field has a different meaning or should override the “Registry Expiry Date” field in Thick RDDS. Any variance of the values in the wild is an architectural factor and not a factor of having a different purpose.

The existing registry domain expiration date should be used in Thick RDDS and we should not attempt to invent a second field for expiration date.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Francisco Arias <<>> wrote:

Hi Jim,

Please see, particularly section 2.1, starting on page 8. This document is in public comment at until 31 January.

The draft provides a reference to the “parent” document of the aforementioned document, which is already in final form. Perhaps the reference in the draft should be to the child document?



On 1/21/16, 12:08 PM, "EppExt on behalf of Gould, James" <<> on behalf of<>> wrote:


I agree with Scott, it is not clear the relationship between the two and the relevance in the registry of maintaining this value.  Can the registrar expiration date be greater then the domain expiration date, less then the domain expiration date, or completely different from the domain expiration date?  The reference for the ThickWhoisPolicy is incorrect in the draft.  Please provide the appropriate reference and highlight where in the Thick Whois Policy it defines the requirement for the registry to hold and display a registrar expiration date in addition to the authoritative domain expiration date.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer<x-msg://133/>

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott <<>> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: I-D-Announce [] On Behalf Of<>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:30 PM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

       Title           : Registrar Registration Expiration Date
Extension Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
       Author          : Gustavo Lozano
Filename        : draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-
Pages           : 15
Date            : 2016-01-21

  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.


EppExt mailing list<>