Subject: RE: Last-Verified Date Contact Element

From: "Liu, Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:50:39 -0500

Rick,

I think you raise a good question about registry object maintenance. A
similar problem also exists for host objects. However, I would like to
understand why the new field is needed. If the sole purpose is for garbage
collection in the registry, it can be done through registry internal
book-keeping. What do you think?

--Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: [Ietf-not43] Last-Verified Date Contact Element

Scott && IESG,

I realized that there is an item we have overlooked in the wg. In private
conversations, myself and others have noted that there is no way to
identify the last time a contact object was verified.

I propose that we add a "Last-Verified" date element to the contact object
so that registries/registrars may express the last time the object was
verified. Since contacts have no expiration date and the "last-modified"
date is irreverent to verification.

I believe that this will aid in identifying old, stale and irreverent data
within a registry and if the element is published in CRISP or whois to the
community in general.

I know it is late in the game for identifing issues with the epp proposals
so I have CCed the IESG.

-rick

_______________________________________________
Ietf-not43 mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:53:55 -0800 (PST)

the thought is not only garbage collection, but that we have the element
in the protocol to comply with future recomendations which many groups are
pulling for at the moment.