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

"Gould, James" <> Thu, 21 January 2016 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9513D1A90B1 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:08:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aLidxraeLzgj for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::262]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8A211A90AD for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x140so3062336oif.3 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:08:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :content-type:mime-version; bh=6qcjBlIYlNAvlOWpajUME+4zacxybEPFoVyJad1Atq8=; b=Hf/gXUIrk3DbpQZRPM58vn3ViV8kjrH8QCiQGxekG8ry0dRdKY3SaMgK8rXGpj1FjM xfmOJuhIUSbpEu8Q+ylqqKBcxU7a3pmeu3adH4TcUjQtae7M66Du3DkBWUnlPVKMOj1r Wv4EA+N4NX1/ZmtBz8CDYa3JotePQoYtrovyocxwW2ZARe/OveQv+Q/KQoI9AY9yyMCw nv/H/5JJ4CCIESqiItWRQ1JHzGgeN8hegdnHsrQFCbvvuHnK80WldU6f1oPx0yoineEO BSuFwxkXg+ocqJhmF4/FK2MfGb2PCMIZLIKNX/hA479RmQ7pJIMiJfHN9NfY81g9WkKV jkow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=6qcjBlIYlNAvlOWpajUME+4zacxybEPFoVyJad1Atq8=; b=TbiZUom8+ZtvS1Zq1V5Y5JpPEAocVyKZP59YiiuIrEhBR/JlqqEVknExfm+J9HtE1C L1RdLPufB/PO+ubZNoZsc02UbJ16mLhfmj7JLb66cPOWxaRR1JxtYBOS3zfVADg6vcvp hrfKdNRMnI/W9710gfIHIHDeYg5FET+sQCtnrgQC1ggevqGFcflSMwLU3MQZ0TR5APmF dLu1vxW/ySfZqBTkcQcKcLvznPG1yWCfIE5VfApQ6N+PLFX2b3k/qU3cZOCPDGpEm6xS P4ZxzXw0AnfwwmZYbz2kmhbp444Tb1y17sh52TdiewDxn7Ld5ftlA5rTVAvjNQW0MX0f Cq6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORotMR27BIDmMzDZ7SlcsphaE7aN4dlNCtzT4oKwGChBTpdKGgaUB/rR1jEPYDeT6skCWjwfceQ4TCO22JDw+yn8Vno
X-Received: by with SMTP id t189mr13270540qhc.42.1453406888159; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id y135sm444229qky.9.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexcas01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0LK87UZ015927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:08:07 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:08:02 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] I-D Action: draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRVII5CddH1x7oPEyvfpfQ7AYzkZ8GX2rQgABaQAA=
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:08:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_3AFA41DDC2364E1E92FBBDF30BE8E94Bverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Gustavo Lozano <>
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 20:08:14 -0000


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

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<>