IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Thu, 22 October 2015 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
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 2E46D1ACE70 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 fWWDab2o4XVV for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f97.google.com (mail-qg0-f97.google.com [209.85.192.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027081AD059 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgem9 with SMTP id m9so3971684qge.0 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=wIeDWCGrGg5WOBa2pr5XUwXNm4rJqhf9caeWFfEJ1R8=; b=XibYo8mn+n+kFNBVebsvE0HGRhzkrF1yipQFfUTAXf+pgQdfKohD0IJswY2XS2Y2Af QReeI22LlIg3Cb31wsvaE+ajjeCOzdj7PmRHBhdCskssd5s9Q8U7rRM/WHNLgCGFCES+ GQQ8dbhxybeF0g+fbnyD3qw4RN/f6cMeXsQlb6BRcQsW1bv1MGOBtdhx7OrbBNwtaQpO i/RySxHeMPCQJd63r9UywhY36PYsoc5nEkeA22uGVsMB/QEwA/jYgdiAaSdbda1/d7bj J4YUm97Ek/CkxWKFUo9IODxBTl2ocJ5vPqrw8x1WOkoJO9fwUBDNRVyuBl6JKT55D4Jo Q8bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBexSCe0WUXIusmOkpmZBkNY/Kd89uS+SFlmv8CHyjOSl8/CIwCEa9t8c88FBMw6KfGaiXLuKwRKb2C7Ky1XlYMlnLwQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.23.47 with SMTP id 44mr9716922qgo.42.1445523683916; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id d19sm1884518qkj.13.2015.10.22.07.21.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t9MELN64023963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:21:23 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:21:23 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
Thread-Topic: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition
Thread-Index: AQHQktoIsBLfNykcPU6a1tKLGGvXH52E04EAgAAC5ICA8+5oAIAAAmcA
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:21:22 +0000
Message-ID: <B3555456-E53A-4855-A4D3-CF4D69BA8728@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>
In-Reply-To: <1445523166.25571.26.camel@afnic.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_B3555456E53A4855A4D3CF4D69BA8728verisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ire/YDqAzPMOJygdaWI47lC261quT4E>
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 14:22:03 -0000

Hi,

My feedback is below.


—


JG


[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr<mailto:Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>> wrote:

Le mercredi 20 mai 2015 à 11:08 +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer a écrit
:
Ok, i see, this is covered by the registry operational policy then.

Yes, I believe so too.
And in many registries, when a domain is in some kind of grace period,
if you do another operation on it (besides deleting it), it ends
prematurely the first grace period and starts a new one, so that there
is no overlap of grace periods (it makes calculations on refunds far
more easier)

There are certainly overlapping grace periods and there is the added complexity of termination of grace periods upon successful transfer.



So what do you think about the rgp endDate in the escrow data?

It seems to me it would be useful…
Otherwise you need to do some hack calculations based on upDate and the
registry policies about grace periods durations (which are not set in
stone by the RFC3915 nor ICANN).


The grace period end date is calculated based on the business logic and not stored in the registry database, so it is not something that would be included in the escrow data.

--
Patrick Mevzek


_______________________________________________
ire mailing list
ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email