Re: [eppext] Adding missing RDAP event action types for gTLDs

Roger D Carney <> Tue, 10 November 2015 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647C41A8F4D; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:20:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eW_CS4KdoAbI; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:19:58 -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 318FD1A8F49; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:19:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.318.15; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:19:51 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0318.003; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:19:51 +0000
From: Roger D Carney <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Adding missing RDAP event action types for gTLDs
Thread-Index: AQHRG+W3Qkw2SFOjD0GXFX7C2VCvSZ6VmD0ggAAbquA=
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:19:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0201MB0775; 5:PVcGj/GId1wa04+HS6NXSfkZSsRqYisBc9ZW4ORKv0TY9pTrrZ8KvL32do9MJBKKpKyivD5YRnuQiIxZ5ExzbxfHzwmxlWEr8+8o6tbRaJS9yt+itFE6IgauvObJkFS9dubSG8b2o1yAknsTa1vROQ==; 24:yJMjLLX5J2e26AmV0z99QQjDRvUPQ5Fi9Sjq8ff7tT/AaTIMK9sKfMqgtwB9wpf8YR552eruGm7esosSckiZ25cpr9gbXg5BiE2m6m5MCUA=; 20:+W3yCpt9sBRTLF33lIgl9QN+4iXNSqqq3jx5NDPX7TvPylr3Ngc5PczTkd69Nl1IUXQwNjs/6UFmpV+/eiGT6A==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0201MB0775;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(108003899814671);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(520078)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BY2PR0201MB0775; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0201MB0775;
x-forefront-prvs: 07562C22DA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(52014003)(377454003)(243025005)(36944003)(199003)(189002)(19617315012)(99286002)(122556002)(40100003)(5003600100002)(189998001)(92566002)(86362001)(105586002)(106116001)(106356001)(19300405004)(5002640100001)(19580405001)(2950100001)(19580395003)(5008740100001)(5890100001)(97736004)(77096005)(101416001)(5001920100001)(87936001)(5007970100001)(5001770100001)(76576001)(11100500001)(450100001)(33656002)(5004730100002)(2501003)(19625215002)(81156007)(66066001)(10400500002)(50986999)(76176999)(107886002)(5001960100002)(74316001)(15975445007)(102836002)(16236675004)(2900100001)(54356999)(17423001)(579004)(559001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0201MB0775;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY2PR0201MB0773F291D96B422DD1224773B1140BY2PR0201MB0773_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Nov 2015 21:19:50.7302 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: d5f1622b-14a3-45a6-b069-003f8dc4851f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB0775
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Adding missing RDAP event action types for gTLDs
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:20:09 -0000

Thanks Gustavo.

I agree with Scott, from what I recall this is just a proposed timeline.

As for this I-D, one comment, one clarification:

*         Comment: in reading Appendix B of RFC 7483 it states that events represent actions that have taken place against a registered object at a certain date and time. I don't see that Last Update of RDAP Database is an action against a registered object, against the "container" of these registered objects but not against a registered object. This may be just a definition issue, I don't recall reading a definition of Last Update of RDAP Database so it could be defined as: the date/time of the last change to a registration object (domain, host, contact) in the RDAP database. Lacking a definition I would have defined Last Update of RDAP Database literally, so any maintenance including restoration, reference table updates, etc I would say changes the Last Update of RDAP Database. Again maybe just a definition issue.

*         Clarification: this I-D tries to address the lack of some RDAP data modeling in regards to Registrar Expiration Date but there still is work needed to address getting this data from registrar to registry, correct? I am not aware of a way to do this currently or of work to make this happen.


From: EppExt [] On Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:48 PM
To: Gustavo Lozano;
Subject: Re: [eppext] Adding missing RDAP event action types for gTLDs

From: weirds [] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:29 PM
Subject: [weirds] Adding missing RDAP event action types for gTLDs

Hello colleagues,

As you may know, two of the open issues in the RDAP profile for gTLDs ( are missing event action types in the base RDAP specification for:
* Last update time of the RDAP database
* Registrar registration expiration date

You may find the details in the following I-D:

It's important to promptly add these two event action types based on the timeline for deployment of RDAP in the gTLDs.


If a recall what I heard in Dublin and Yokohama, the timeline is *proposed* and subject to a community review process that is supposed to start later this month - correct?