IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition

Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr> Thu, 22 October 2015 14:13 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 DED9C1ACECD for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 b4NkYD9YEZdc for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:13:20 -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 686121A90B6 for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 152C228037B for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:13:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D21628043C for <ire@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:13:18 +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 24B28B38051; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:12:46 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1445523166.25571.26.camel@afnic.fr>
From: Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
To: ire@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:12:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAC1BbcRjrsHK0gf3sQO_xs0C8JM+4Ftwd2=J=F8-hC09ocZbCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC1BbcQSBYa1JE4C2tM5+WqmFOMVSMfTk-ovYWcW_=PLQa1MiQ@mail.gmail.com> <555C4C9A.3080403@knipp.de> <CAC1BbcRjrsHK0gf3sQO_xs0C8JM+4Ftwd2=J=F8-hC09ocZbCQ@mail.gmail.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/gikvZCN5I_Hi7QwGSAGLcyCy9Po>
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 14:13:22 -0000

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)

> 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).

-- 
Patrick Mevzek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email