Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] pendingCreate should allow domain update

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:24:26 -0500

> Currently, the EPP doc defines that on pendingCreate, no 
> domain updates are
> allowed.  This poses a chicken and egg problem: for example 
> many times, upon
> a pendingCreate the registry may require the registrant to 
> change the admin
> contact for local presence requirements.  If the registrant 
> is not able to
> update the domain, then the domain cannot be approved...

Why not require the registrant to provide correct information in the first
place?

Making changes after a request has been submitted seems like a bad idea to
me.  You're suggesting that once the evaluation starts it should be OK to
change the data being evaluated.  This isn't a "chicken and egg" problem,
it's a "get your ducks in a row before you apply" issue.  If something is
found to be in error you can always:

1. Reject the request because it can't be approved as submitted.

2. Approve the request and require an update (using a status like
serverHold) before you allow the domain to go "active".

My feeling is that an atomic request to create something should be static.
Once you get into allowing updates after a request is submitted it becomes
more difficult to track what's being requested.

-Scott-

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:10:21 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> serverHold) before you allow the domain to go "active".

This is a good suggestion I suppose.

Edmon

---

From: Daniel Manley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:13:13 -0500

I can see an application of your point Edmon.  What if the pendingCreate 
thing is rejected?  Is the object deleted and the registrar notified 
through a PAN?  This would leave the object open for creation from 
another registrant (at the same registrar or a different one).  Is that 
fair (maybe it is, maybe it isn't)?  If the answer is always to approve 
it with then a serverHold status, doesn't that defeat the purpose of 
"pendingCreate"?

Dan