IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ire] Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDomain:trnData

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> Wed, 20 May 2015 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rep.dot.nop@gmail.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 688881A03FF for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 01:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.301
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cz8VKZnc-8HS for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 01:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com (mail-la0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) (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 D69771A0338 for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 01:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laat2 with SMTP id t2so62400861laa.1 for <ire@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KtzeqeVIPDFaCDwWJlHoZLJfmFdVUgL/1+N5aqiymE8=; b=a4lRVLH0cp57whbMRbWMjbCv+KJU3a9iY/1OX5SXJgycEO5TguVx8ajzzVs6W9jZDo z8Qar59IrW3ihWhrF45rEQXIXaz+aU1o7HVxbapKJFI/una8xjzZN0lWL69CgDcFDXTM KiV3tnBDqNZlwZ7OQQB6TNvvQvVrVIvltY5S7RYATEGPs+kkfgCX6SQAet5Ysj9/Jkfk cfQht24RqS31GTwzw2fifIOKFbzTEaTjajOFowvH6apfnHz5FqUM8xIFWX/nuI161onc J0Wz+yorx0XWRXFv23sK71xYbnvxfgeeB2mhO/G/SBGI6gP9mmu0vow4RykCnRf3YHoN 5qow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.234.139 with SMTP id ue11mr25133423lac.28.1432110769353; Wed, 20 May 2015 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.90.230 with HTTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8CA76639-AA2E-4E05-93F0-10E5CCD86AB4@verisign.com>
References: <CAC1BbcTqa+1q0RLGZJTUG9mqM+2P_9jma8=oT_6ha6QzxnQqkw@mail.gmail.com> <8CA76639-AA2E-4E05-93F0-10E5CCD86AB4@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:32:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC1BbcRxpecobaJSxiRLaRJDNTbVNSpic+UdEAGiBmMO+MaX6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133a85cafbb0505167f4596"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ire/pyFt2pAmt91vOfYbNsHriTlvY6c>
Cc: "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ire] Escrow, DNRD rdeDomain:trDate vs. rdeDomain:trnData
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: <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 May 2015 08:32:52 -0000

On 13 April 2015 at 19:40, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  I would go with what is defined
> in draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping as authoritative.
>
>  The question raised is whether the rdeDomain:trDate, rdeContact:trDate,
> rdeHost:trDate elements for XML and the rdeCsv:fTrDate element in the
> “domain”, “host”, and “contact” CVS files should be removed.  These
> elements match up to what is supported in the EPP RFC’s.  For example in
> the EPP Domain Name RFC 5731, the domain info response includes the
> optional domain:trDate element that is separate from the elements returned
> in a transfer query response.  Although the domain:trDate element could be
> derived from the transfer query response domain:acDate element, from a data
> model perspective they may be separate attributes and subsequently the data
> escrow should support both the rdeDomain:trDate, rdeContact:trDate,
> rdeHost:trDate elements in the XML model and the rdeCsv:fTrDate element in
> the CSV model.  Thoughts on this?
>

Since the trDate denotes the last successful object transfer as opposed to
the trnData describing a currently pending transfer i think it is OK as is,
on second thought.
I cannot find the word "successful" around the rdeCsv:fTrDate though but
i'm not using CSV.

>
>  On the status of the drafts, Barry Leiba, the IETF Applications Area
> (app) Area Director (AD),  agreed to sponsor the
> draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow and
> draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping drafts for standards track.
>

Looking forward to that.


>  Barry will review the drafts and his feedback will be incorporated into
> subsequent versions of the drafts.  We will be asking for Implementation
> Status information similar to section 6 of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase,
> so if you do have Implementation Status information that you would like
> incorporated into draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow or
> draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping, please forward it on.
>

I will leave it to our customer to provide any Implementation Status
information.

thanks,

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email