Re: [ire] New version (4) of the spec and new draft on DNRD (1)

[Francisco Obispo <[e-mail]>]

Yes,

I mentioned in a previous email that "registrar" was also wrong, because we're assuming that there is one, when it could be anyone.

I agree with the concept of "Client" but I just want to make sure we're referring to the same type of client across upID, crID and clID.

So if a "client" was able to login via EPP, that ID will be reflected in any of those fields in the corresponding object's information as part of a transaction that occurred.

So when exporting the data to the escrow, those fields must include an identifier that is present in the "client"'s table, and if clients happen to be registrar, it will be a registrar ID.

Francisco


On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:57 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> EPP doesn't refer to clients as "users" since that word has anthropomorphic meaning and clients don't have to be human. It does say this about the "sponsor" word (in section 1.1 of RFC 5730):
> 
> "A protocol client that is authorized to manage an existing object is described as a "sponsoring" client throughout this document."
> 
> Scott

Francisco Obispo 
Director of Applications and Services - ISC
email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE