Subject: Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:12:46 +0200

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

---

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:21:22 +0000

Hi,

My feedback is below.

—

JG

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email-masked]

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

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

On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Yes, I believe so too.

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

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
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:30:21 +0200

Le jeudi 22 octobre 2015 à 14:21 +0000, Gould, James a écrit :
> 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.  

Registry policy/internal implementation detail I think: I know at least
one registry operator where grace period end dates are stored in the
database (to speed up various other checks).

The calculation needs to be done only once (at start of the grace
period), it can make sense to keep the result and not do it many times
after.

Also, if registry operator changes (the purpose of escrowing stuff),
how should the new operator know all the grace period end dates,
especially if it does not have access to all the business logic details
of its predecessor?
Or you mean that the new registry operator business logic would kick it
at that time, but then you have the problem of knowing when the grace
period started, for which you may use the upDate of the domain
probably.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:44:12 +0000

Patrick,

My feedback is below.

—

JG

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email-masked]

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

On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Le jeudi 22 octobre 2015 à 14:21 +0000, Gould, James a écrit :
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).

That is an implementation decision for that registry, but that is not the case for us.

We calculate the applicable grace periods dynamically based on the various grace period rules that apply.  This is not static data.

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.

--
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:49:22 +0200

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

---

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:30:34 +0000

Patrick,

Grace periods typically don’t apply across registrar transfers, so why would they apply across registry transfers?  Would the EBERO providers be willing to provide grace period credits for transactions they never received funds for?  Going down the path of trying to get the grace periods to transfer will lead to a large list of issues.  My recommendation is for the grace periods to only be applicable within the life of an individual registry, meaning they do not transfer upon failure to an EBERO provider or from an EBERO provider back to a registry.

—

JG

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email-masked]

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

On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

--
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: Christopher Browne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:03:43 -0400

> who want to do it can do it (and the others would not care about this

I'm uncomfortable with basing the inclusion/exclusion of grace period data
based on whether or not a particular registry implementation stores or
computes it.  That conflates implementation with policy.

On the other hand, when IRE captures neither transactions nor amounts, it
seems entirely surprising for it to indicate grace periods.

I'd be surprised for an EBERO that is temporarily providing services to be
interested in getting into offering grace period-based refunds, and I'm not
sure that fits with the arrangements with ICANN.   Typical grace periods
would likely have long expired by the time a transition would take place to
a more permanent successor operator.