IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ire] Escrow deposit watermark

Bhadresh Modi <bmodi@afilias.info> Wed, 20 March 2013 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bmodi@afilias.info>
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 EE89F21F8F8A for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 dbDihsaBZMNz for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [66.199.183.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0D821F8F87 for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([10.109.8.9] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <bmodi@afilias.info>) id 1UIJaO-000701-4E for ire@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:01:48 +0000
Received: from mail-ee0-f72.google.com ([74.125.83.72]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bmodi@afilias.info>) id 1UIJaO-0005uH-3Q for ire@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:01:48 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f72.google.com with SMTP id b15so2764898eek.11 for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=S6LJX/7i/UYUbPumWjQU0L8PLvWiAX0MVeaHxUlbNpM=; b=CBxFExuQZgs7YEjfhoHIopOA066w16t1edDiNt0U0UODRprOUyjMhB3D7nOutF4TgX gsDxnco1jkVfDUlwRLHF5lU9EnRBF6puoFueDiZOUy+zK0m3ujcCkx2bhHRW382iQ6iM pp5iKBugcOkDFUk1DjD1v8qZgeJPENOBQurhGv0rMzjCDzP08MCma49o/vG1JKp65657 c+vbLfj/Itl7m0EVgPC6/qBI2fuDKN4OYm6FIsb2aTnNIXTzc7/Wt3Eixqn4wFxW6WH5 NfMoFaN0qe0cbT8j6C0Z7W3um+kq5QbJg71ZpKm2/2JDyDLN2DLINVgtF4mtWSLLio7U 9LgQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.108.3 with SMTP id hg3mr10308353wib.33.1363788102010; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.3 with SMTP id hg3mr10308327wib.33.1363788101788; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.10.4 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B40ED8E4-E369-4FE0-9DBF-FE7E730154CC@isc.org>
References: <CD6F502A.6A7E1%james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au> <B40ED8E4-E369-4FE0-9DBF-FE7E730154CC@isc.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:01:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMi4TxwY22siqALj9gMhjF6ttu_7X1EyuxiJiyARAs1ZU0L2wA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bhadresh Modi <bmodi@afilias.info>
To: "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba6e35b3b1c04d85ba9a2"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxODaMxyfjA6tNMQnzRZ+6QVjrPxJRArxVQSJWSFpO64mMAbzkOpE68JKlgMLp+20nXI8ZY5ecYcQCjXw2POHEIN9GAYrfNLfxi7UCwspDzlzbajbWK9fz5rowEdHpIeo8nEI0
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:01:50 -0000

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.

The validation should be that no date/times within the escrow file are
newer than the watermark, and that the watermark is for the correct day
(not some date/time in the future).

Regards,
Bhadresh Modi
bmodi@afilias.info


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Francisco Obispo <fobispo@isc.org> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> We have thought about this as well, and I agree with you. The requirement
> should be of a daily deposit (full or incremental), I don't see a value of
> having the state of the registry at a specific time.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 5:38 PM, James Mitchell <
> james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Our proposed escrow solution would produce deposits for all transactions
> committed up to the point in time that the extract is generated. This may
> be considered contrary to the base agreement, where deposits must reflect
> the state of the registry as at 00:00 UTC. As we will generate full
> deposits every day, each deposit would include the state of the registry as
> at 00:00, plus the state of the registry including transactions committed
> up until the generation of the deposit. We do not perceive this as a lesser
> service, given the escrowed data is more up-to-date, unless there are other
> reasons for the 00:00 requirement that are unknown to us. Is the proposed
> solution considered acceptable given the requirements outlined in the base
> agreement?
> >
>
> Francisco Obispo
> Director of Applications and Services - ISC
> email: fobispo@isc.org
> Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
> PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE
>
> _______________________________________________
> ire mailing list
> ire@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email