Subject: [Crisp] new status for DREG2

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:16:07 -0500

I had a meeting with an sTLD operator last week where it was brought  
to my attention that they would like to mark domains with a status  
indicating compliance with regulations not directly related to the  
actual domain registration process... as in, they have conducted a  
compliance check and have found that a domain holder's web site meets  
certain accessibility requirements or internationalization  
requirements, etc...

To do what they would like, I think we should add a <compliant:> and  
<noncompliant> enhanced status to the base enhanced status set in  
DREG2.  The substatus and related authority would indicate the type  
of compliance.

Any comments?

-andy 

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:24:54 -0600

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:16:07 -0500
Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote:

> compliance check and have found that a domain holder's web site
> meets certain accessibility requirements or internationalization  
> requirements, etc...
> 

who gets to set it? the data originator, or the data(base) manager
or ...

is it revised after the event? does it require differential ACL?

-George

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:50:51 -0500

> who gets to set it? the data originator, or the data(base) manager

In the particular case I have been given, it would be the TLD  
operator.  This is similar to the lameness check.  In the general  
case, I would assume it would be up to the policies of the server  
operator (who is most likely the TLD operator) as to where they get  
the information.

> is it revised after the event?

Just like the other enhanced status values, the operator can attach a  
date so they can indicate compliance and then noncompliance and then  
compliance if they want.  However, I think it is more likely that  
they simply only indicate the current status.

> does it require differential ACL?

As with any of the use cases for IRIS, that is up to the TLD  
operator.  However, the particular example I was given was that this  
status would be exposed to everybody (annonymous access).

-andy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:49:17 -0500

> certain accessibility requirements or internationalization  

Hmm.  I've seen proposed a case where the policy is actually
many-valued: compliant, noncompliant, and N/A, for instance.
Trademarks are a good case: if the domain is created during one
period, the trademark has either been checked or not, but if the
domain is created after that period, nobody cares about the
trademark.  I suppose one could argue that the "don't care" case is
compliant anyway, but what about a <policy:> status with <name:>
substatus and <compliance:> substatus?  Maybe that's overengineering.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:21:36 -0500

> many-valued: compliant, noncompliant, and N/A, for instance.

I'm a little puzzled about N/A.  Wouldn't that just be the absence of  
any compliance/noncompliance status?

> substatus and <compliance:> substatus?  Maybe that's overengineering.

I was thinking of having it simply derive from the regular enhanced  
status type.  So it would look like this:

<noncompliant>
   <description language="en">
     Scan detected multiple compliance issues.
   </description>
   <substatus authority="tld.example">
     COMPLIANCE-CODE-X
   </substatus>
   <substatus authority="tld.example">
     COMPLIANCE-CODE-Y
   </substatus>
</noncompliant>

Perhaps changing the element names to <policyCompliance> and  
<policyNoncompliance>.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:37:10 -0500

> any compliance/noncompliance status?

Yeah.  That's why I was thinking that I might be going down a
rathole.  I like your idea better.

A

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:43:33 +0200

Andrew Newton wrote:
> I had a meeting with an sTLD operator last week where it was brought to
> my attention that they would like to mark domains with a status
> certain accessibility requirements or internationalization requirements,
> etc...
> 
> DREG2.  The substatus and related authority would indicate the type of
> compliance.

That looks to me like some "validation status" - might be very similar to
what is used in ENUM.

Any chance to recycly valdationEvents from EREG here?

cheers

alex