[eppext] launchphase + domain check

Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl> Mon, 13 July 2015 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>
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 A1B1E1B2BB4 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.785
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 9BZ2Ojh9nJFB for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA481B2B97 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id:accept-language:content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version; bh=JsuuBJJ1S4sVo3knXtGdZ952PbJaROIBDya5h9Rlw9E=; b=dfjYDOv+2d+w834h/bYja7jKYdlTOa3B3Dr5CS2JQzrsFAxaS+M+HSyXI/bi63InOIGNtpn5uB3+eDG9kt/CPqv35G2rvUBlFa2w/7pCInh5gV+MIUdR+JZBu5z5jazYnqi0nV/tL4Ts9P89hzRky9STtGUegD5dCjTv8LDVvxoz2IDWuQDO/r6CzTB3KwJho82q7yqf0Xgssi0e5+F1StKHwt+TPc1MPVClaafCJ/TZ8DBQ9OjnblzmNGijCUxtdFbIZFzfTyJQXTLP8kNzpwq5xhTBPDajCO3C2G+/OH7as/xTgaXHPI4HnNoQPypUmQql78TQyS6lptvQluupwg==
Received: from ka-mbx02.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.178]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id t6DFPXpL030115-t6DFPXpN030115 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL) for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:25:33 +0200
Received: from KAHUBCASN02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.76) by ka-mbx02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:25:37 +0200
Received: from KAMBX2.SIDN.local ([fe80::b1fd:88d9:e136:9655]) by kahubcasn02 ([192.168.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:25:35 +0200
From: Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>
To: "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: launchphase + domain check
Thread-Index: AdC9f4yDmUkuuNROTTS4w2NzOYoMcQ==
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:25:33 +0000
Message-ID: <C80127C588F8F2409E2B535AF968B768BA1E963F@kambx2.SIDN.local>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.2.172]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C80127C588F8F2409E2B535AF968B768BA1E963Fkambx2SIDNlocal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/lwe0IEOs2jvE3AeWTQMw4_E3ZSs>
Subject: [eppext] launchphase + domain check
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:25:37 -0000

All,

I've had a very interesting discussion regarding the launchphase draft. The discussion focusses around the domain check and the TMCH claims period. Section 2.3 of the I-D states that:

** quote on **
The server MAY support multiple launch phases sequentially or simultaneously.  The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the client to define the target launch phase of the command.
** quote off **

So when doing a domain check during a TMCH claims period the domain check in the "Claims check form", "Availability Check Form" and "Trademark Check Form" must contain the <launch:phase> element describing the active phase.

So far so good. But what about the "normal operation" domain check. This is the standard epp domain check (without the launchphase extension). The draft does not explicitly say anything about it, but according to Section 2.3 one could argue that this is not allowed during a TMCH claims period as there is no <launch:phase> element provided.

I would love to here from other WG-members what they think about this...

Kind regards,
Rik Ribbers