Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
"Tran, Trung" <Trung.Tran@neustar.biz> Thu, 08 January 2015 17:12 UTC
Return-Path: <Trung.Tran@neustar.biz>
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 F2D331A005C
for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:12:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334,
J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 bHyDWe7q3Qvv for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com
[67.231.149.94])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA0F01A87E0
for <eppext@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:12:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0078666.ppops.net [127.0.0.1])
by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t08H5TiD024277;
Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:11:59 -0500
Received: from stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216])
by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1rswbg84qq-1
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:11:52 -0500
Received: from stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.2.192]) by
stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 8 Jan
2015 12:11:50 -0500
From: "Tran, Trung" <Trung.Tran@neustar.biz>
To: Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com>, "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>,
"eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims
Service" post the Claims Phase
Thread-Index: AQHQK2YwQl5JVElI9UChfyCYUoIA/A==
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:11:49 +0000
Message-ID: <D0D41AB9.46E54%trung.tran@neustar.biz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [10.33.200.242]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_004_D0D41AB946E54trungtranneustarbiz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7674
signatures=670599
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0
kscore.is_bulkscore=3.01686287063063e-10 kscore.compositescore=0
circleOfTrustscore=0 compositescore=0.998296994268722
urlsuspect_oldscore=0.998296994268722 suspectscore=0
recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0
kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0
recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 rbsscore=0.998296994268722
spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9
adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1501080161
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/_O2CNX6yDOqDRoHnU-tSa0oO-ig>
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 17:12:11 -0000
Thanks Jim for bringing this to the eppext. This will definitely help the post claims phase.
With the wording changes, is there still a way to determine if there’s a trademark against the name regardless on whether or not the claims ack is needed in the create domain?
Trung
From: Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com<mailto:jkolker@godaddy.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 11:15 AM
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>>, "eppext@ietf.org<mailto:eppext@ietf.org>" <eppext@ietf.org<mailto:eppext@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
Thanks Jim.
>From a registrar perspective, this will solve the issue of domains that are released after the initial 90 day claims period but still require a claim to be presented to the customer.
Thanks,
Jody Kolker
319-294-3933 (office)
319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall@godaddy.com<mailto:cbeadnall@godaddy.com>) with any feedback.
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
From: EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:18 PM
To: eppext@ietf.org<mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
All,
There was an issue raised privately in supporting claims as a Claims Service post the Claims Phase. According to section 2.4.3 of the RPM Requirements, “...releases for Allocation or registration such reserved domain name at any time following the start date of the Claims Period, such domain MUST be subject to the Claims Services (as described in Section 3) for a period of ninety (90) calendar days following the date Registry Operator releases such domain name for registration…”. This means that support for the Claims Check Form needs to be revised to indicate whether or not the Claims Create Form is needed for the domain name and the use of the Claims Create Form should be supported in phases other than “claims”. There are no XML schema changes required to support this. Please review and provide feedback to the proposed revised language in the draft below to include in the next version of the draft that will also include the Implementation Status section discussed at the IETF-91 EPPEXT meeting.
Change 3.1.1 "Claims Check Form" as follows:
The Claims Check Form defines a new command called the Claims Check
Command that is used to determine whether or not there are any
matching trademarks, in the specified launch phase, for each domain
name passed in the command, that requires the use of the "Claims Create Form"
on a Domain Create Command.
Instead of returning whether the domain name is available, the Claims
Check Command will return whether or not at least one matching
trademark exists for the domain name, that requires the use of the
"Claims Create Form" on a Domain Create Command.
<launch:name> Contains the fully qualified name of the queried
domain name. This element MUST contain an "exists" attribute
whose value indicates if a matching trademark exists for the
domain name that requires the use of the "Claims Create Form" on a Domain Create Command.
A value of "1" (or "true") means that a
matching trademark does exist and that the "Claims Create Form" is required on
a Domain Create Command. A
value of "0" (or "false") means that a matching trademark
does not exist or that the "Claims Create Form" is NOT required on a Domain Create Command.
Change 3.3.2 "Claims Create Form" as follows:
<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.
Based on the above revised language the following may be done:
1. During claims phase with a claims check command
* If domain has matching trademark
* return exists=true
* else
* return exists=false
1. During post claims phase with a claims check command
* If domain was released post claims phase start and is within 90 days of release and has matching trademark
* return exists=true
* else
* return exists=false
1. During claims phase with a create command
* If domain has matching trademark
* claims notice is required
* else
* claims notice is NOT required
1. During post claims phase with a create command
* If domain was released post claims phase start and is within 90 days of release and has matching trademark return
* claims notice is required
* else
* claims notice is NOT required
Thanks,
—
JG
[cid:image001.png@01D02B1B.47DE3280]
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__VerisignInc.com&d=AwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=szebc6wpGwppUlrnEyVYLycmIErTch1EX1wsyS31LMM&m=ZToEUQPm3bS0m0H70sVsrqVtbL50FxcWcNdrQ7XC9bg&s=__oleqH0HPAGnoyLyheOlTjwDph4zKQKEkrxnoI8JH4&e=>
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
- [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support fo… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Jody Kolker
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Tran, Trung
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Francisco Obispo
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Jody Kolker
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Tran, Trung
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Michael Holloway
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Rik Ribbers
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Michael Holloway
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Jothan Frakes
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Jothan Frakes
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Michael Holloway
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Michael Holloway
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Gould, James
- Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Suppor… Michael Holloway