Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Grace periods

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:30:35 -0500

Antony,

No, I have no intention of updating the RGP document to include descriptions
of status values that have nothing to do with the RGP.  There may, however,
be some value in defining a new extension that describes some of the
policy-based grace periods that you described below.

But -- there's already a status value to describe what I think you mean when
you say "Transfer grace period".  See the description of the
"pendingTransfer" status in the domain draft.  For that matter, it may make
sense to use the other "pending" status values to describe the add and renew
grace periods, as in "this action has been requested but hasn't yet been
fully completed".  Would that make sense?

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Perkov [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Grace periods
> 
> 
> Are there any plans to update the 
> draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt document
> to include status values for grace periods other than "redemption"?
> 
> I'm interested in status values for the other grace periods 
> described at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030323.DeletesTF-final-report
.html which
are:

* Add grace period
* Auto renew grace period
* Renew grace period
* Transfer grace period

It seems to me that it would be useful to be able to provide registrars this
information via the <info> command.

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:35:58 -0500

> I agree, it wouldn't be the right thing to do to have non RGP 
> stuff in the
> existing document without changing it's name.  I guess I was 
> really asking
> is there an intent to make it a more general "grace periods" 
> document.  As
> you say this may or may not be necessary.

No, I wasn't planning on making the document a "grace periods" document.
The ones that you described outside of RGP require nothing more than status
values to indicate application of a registry policy.  RGP has real
processing requirements in addition to the status values.

One should be able to do RGP without the grace periods (and vice-versa), so
I don't think they should be combined in the same namespace (or document).

> For clarity, perhaps I should explain my understanding of the 
> "new" grace
> periods suggested in the Deletes Task Force report.  It seems 
> to all boils
> down to: a registrar being able to get a credit / refund for 
> any domain
> creation, renewal, or transfer as long as they delete the 
> domain within 5
> days of the creation, renewal, or transfer (which then leads to the
> redemption grace period except during the add grace period).
> 
> To me the "pending" status values don't really seem to describe this
> situation adequately to a registrar as they don't distinguish between
> "action not finished" and "action refundable".

Perhaps...

> I guess the most important thing is that all registries 
> implementing the
> Deletes Task Force's suggested grace periods expose this information
> consistently.  How are other people doing this at the moment?

I'm not aware of anyone that has tried expose the grace period information.
To be honest, I'm leery when it comes to producing new protocol structures
every time some ICANN task force produces a policy recommendation.  If,
however, others feel that these grace periods are sufficiently well
established in a few different TLD registries maybe it makes sense to
document them as status values.

-Scott-

---

From: Antony Perkov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:15:06 -0000

Scott,

I agree, it wouldn't be the right thing to do to have non RGP stuff in the
existing document without changing it's name.  I guess I was really asking
is there an intent to make it a more general "grace periods" document.  As
you say this may or may not be necessary.

For clarity, perhaps I should explain my understanding of the "new" grace
periods suggested in the Deletes Task Force report.  It seems to all boils
down to: a registrar being able to get a credit / refund for any domain
creation, renewal, or transfer as long as they delete the domain within 5
days of the creation, renewal, or transfer (which then leads to the
redemption grace period except during the add grace period).

I guess the most important thing is that all registries implementing the
Deletes Task Force's suggested grace periods expose this information
consistently.  How are other people doing this at the moment?

Antony. 

> From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 04 November 2003 12:31
> To: 'Antony Perkov'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: Grace periods
> 
> Antony,
>

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:53:34 -0500

Antony,

After thinking about this a bit more I think you might be on to something.
It may make more sense to modify this document to make it a general grace
period document since the RGP is itself an ICANN-described grace period.  It
would mean some re-work to make the RGP one of several grace periods, but it
might make more sense than having two documents describing different grace
periods.

I'm at the IETF meeting now if anyone wants to talk about this live.  If
not, I'll think about it some more and see what I can do next week.

-Scott-

> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:15 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: Grace periods
> 
> 
> Scott,
>