Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition

Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr> Thu, 22 October 2015 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040A41A0137 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jzrXIj-cZAcv for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 355851A0126 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 42A402803E1; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:49:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE1328037B; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:49:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from citrine.tech.ipv6.nic.fr (citrine.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:96]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0C9B38051; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:49:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1445525362.25571.44.camel@afnic.fr>
From: Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:49:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <A81FAEEF-D0DB-4624-A43C-071548C1B843@verisign.com>
References: <CAC1BbcQSBYa1JE4C2tM5+WqmFOMVSMfTk-ovYWcW_=PLQa1MiQ@mail.gmail.com> <555C4C9A.3080403@knipp.de> <CAC1BbcRjrsHK0gf3sQO_xs0C8JM+4Ftwd2=J=F8-hC09ocZbCQ@mail.gmail.com> <1445523166.25571.26.camel@afnic.fr> <B3555456-E53A-4855-A4D3-CF4D69BA8728@verisign.com> <1445524221.25571.33.camel@afnic.fr> <A81FAEEF-D0DB-4624-A43C-071548C1B843@verisign.com>
Organization: AFNIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 (3.16.5-3.fc22)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ire/VuhRbEpcHdkYGNmhqrrkbe1ydCk>
Cc: "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 22 Oct 2015 14:49:55 -0000

Le jeudi 22 octobre 2015 à 14:44 +0000, Gould, James a écrit :
> Will the gaining registry operator really provide grace period
> credits?  It would be interesting to hear from the EBERO providers 
> what they will or should support related to grace periods and 
> credits.  Grace periods is not persisted in our registries and is not 
> applicable for escrow.  

I agree with you that it (storing or recomputing) is a local decision
by each registry.
We may overthink the problem right now because indeed it depends on
what the EBERO will do for domains concerned by grace periods.
And that case has not been seen yet AFAIK.

However, if there is no dates in the escrow at all, it makes it
impossible or very difficult for EBEROs to apply refunds (if they want
to do it of course), while if it is optionally in the escrow (and up to
the registry generating the escrow to provide it or now), then EBEROs
who want to do it can do it (and the others would not care about this
piece of data).


-- 
Patrick Mevzek