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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gustavo Lozano [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-
> date-00.txt
> 
> 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 will not support publication of an EPP extension RFC that is unclear about
the purpose of the extension or the fields that are being added. Something
needs to be added to the draft to make that purpose crystal clear. If that
means adding text to an external document, fine. However, you do need to
answer the questions I asked in my last note.
 
> 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.

Then this needs to be spelled out in the draft. We can't publish a
specification that is unclear about the meaning of the information being
exchanged, and we do need to be clear about how that information relates to
other information that's currently part of the protocol.

I really don't like the idea of standardizing broken or otherwise confusing
operational practices. Perhaps the policies and practices should be revised
to ensure that the information is consistent.
 
> 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.

So what's the point of publishing meaningless data?

Scott