Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark
Thomas Corte <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> Thu, 21 March 2013 09:35 UTC
Return-Path: <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418AE21F8E1C for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bQuhTX5JOix7 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de (clust3b-eth0-0.bbone.knipp.de [195.253.6.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B9A21F8E16 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1349750 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:22 +0100 (MEZ)
X-Knipp-VirusScanned: Yes
Received: from kmx10a.knipp.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kmx10a.knipp.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10004) with ESMTP id hI1JEoujlMph for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:16 +0100 (MEZ)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx10a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA6853 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:16 +0100 (MEZ)
Received: from localhost (thomas@localhost) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (@(#)Sendmail version 8.13.3 - Revision 1.000 - 1st August, 2006/8.13.3) with ESMTP id r2L9ZGf3028694 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:16 +0100 (MEZ)
X-Authentication-Warning: hp9000.do.knipp.de: thomas owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:16 +0100
From: Thomas Corte <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
X-X-Sender: thomas@hp9000.do.knipp.de
To: ire@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GHP.4.64.1303211016380.24937@hp9000.do.knipp.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <ire.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ire>
List-Post: <mailto:ire@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:35:25 -0000
Hello, on Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Bhadresh Modi <bmodi@afilias.info> wrote: > We've had the same concern and some of our account managers have > raised the issue before with icann. > > Another thing to point out is that even if all processes to esrow all > registries are started at 00:00 UTC with that watermark, there may be > a problem which causes an escrow to fail. Restarting the process > then will begin a new escrow but it may be impossible to return to > the state at exactly 00:00 UTC. Again as pointed out before, this > new deposit file would contain all information as of 00:00 UTC and > also include any new transactions taken place after that time. Frankly, I'm quite surprised by this simplistic approach to Escrow generation (which inevitably leads to the problem you're describing), which seems to have been taken by other backend providers, too. In order to achieve what the applicant guide book demands (and which has been a requirement in previous Escrow specifications issued by ICANN btw), it is of course essential that a registry maintains a detailed version history of all repository objects, each object version carrying the start and end date/time of its validity. Only this allows taking a snapshot of the registry database for a given time stamp and, in turn, creating a precise escrow, regardless of when the Escrow is produced. While I recognize that having an Escrow for an exact date and time is probably more a formal than a practical matter, I think it is questionable to simply disregard this requirement from the applicant guidebook. After all, other applicants and their backend providers (such as the company I am working for) *do* adhere to the specification, and had to go to great length in order to achieve that. Simply asking ICANN to alter the spec for simplification purposes means gaining an unfair competitive advantage over those backend providers who decided to add the required sophistication to their systems. Best regards, Thomas Corte -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Thomas Corte Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Senior Software Developer SIP: Thomas.Corte@knipp.de E-Mail: Thomas.Corte@knipp.de Register Court: District Court Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
- Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark Thomas Corte
- [ire] Escrow deposit watermark James Mitchell
- Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark Francisco Obispo
- Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark Bhadresh Modi
- Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark Christopher Browne
- Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark Gustavo Lozano