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

[Francisco Obispo <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:42 AM, "Gould, James" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Your interpretation is different from mine of the EPP specifications.

I find myself in this situation more ofter than I would like, but it is my job to do fine grain review, and you guys have a better view because Verisign played an important role in the authorship of the docs, which is why I come to these lists to try to get clarification to those grey areas.


>  The
> term client is generic, where the reference to the "sponsoring client" in
> the description of <clID> refers to the registrar.  The reference to
> simply "client" in the description of crID and upID can and should refer
> to any client including the actual user.

Yes, but my interpretation is that those fields track 'registrars' not internal users.



> It makes no sense to only return
> the sponsoring client information for the crID and upID fields, since they
> would pretty much almost always match the same value of clID.


Not necessarily, 

1) REGISTRAR_A  creates a domain name (crID and clID = REGISTRAR_A)
2) Domain name is transferred to REGISTRAR_B (clID = REGISTRAR_B crID = REGISTRAR_A)
3) Domain name is updated (upID=REGISTRAR_B)
4) Domain name is transferred to REGISTRAR_C (clID=REGISTRAR_C)

Final state:

clID=REGISTRAR_C
crID=REGISTRAR_A
upID=REGISTRAR_B




>  It's best
> to reference the actual user (Registrar User, Registry User, or whoever)
> actually created or updated the object via any of the supported channels
> (EPP, Registrar Web Tool, CSR Web Tool, Batch, etc.).  I believe you need
> to change the description of the crID and upID fields of the data escrow
> to match that of the EPP specifications.  We can continue to debate our
> interpretation of the EPP specification as it relates to the crID and upID
> elements.  

My design choice would be to keep the changes done by the registry somewhere else and not on these fields since in my opinion, they relate to authorized clients (a registry/system user might belong to a client), so in your example, it is important that 'verisign' did it and not jgould, jgould would be referenced in an audit table as a person acting on behalf of verisign performing a specific transaction in the logs.

Regards,


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