RE: [registrars] Discussion of EPP 1.0 Transition Issues

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

do u want to send this to carolyn and schedule a joint conference call.

I think it is important to do so myself

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 4:08 PM
> To: Registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Discussion of EPP 1.0 Transition Issues
> 
> All,
> 
> The following are issues that apply specifically to the 
> implementation of EPP 1.0. There may be others that have been 
> raised that I missed, so please let me know. We should 
> discuss these on the list and develop a position on each 
> sooner than later since the registries are already in 
> implementaiton mode. These positions could be presented and 
> discussed with the registries in Cape Town, but I would 
> suggest we request a conference call with the registries 
> prior to Cape Town if possible to present and discuss our positions.
> 
> 1. The UTC time format must be the mandatory time format for 
> all dates and timestamps generated in and through the EPP System.
> 
> 2. Use of unique client and server transaction ids must be possible.
> 
> 3. The output for not owned objects must be restricted if the 
> request is not authenticated by the auth-info code. The data 
> to be displayed without authendification must still be determined.
> 
> 4. The same unified object status must be available to all 
> objects across all registries.
> 
> 5. The ISO-3166/1 standard must be used to reflect countries 
> in objects where a country is used.
> 
> 6. The registrar id of the registrar who initiated a transfer 
> must be known at time of the transfer.
> 
> 7. A change to the EPP <poll> command response calls for it 
> to return the ID of the *next message* on the queue instead 
> of the ID of the message that is being acknowledged. 
> Regardless of the EPP 1.0 spec, does this really make any sense?
> 
> 8. External Hosts are described in RFC 3731. Although not 
> required by the RFC, it would seem to make sense that a 
> Registry provide a method of notification of Host name 
> changes so that a registrar may propagate that change within 
> its own system as well as with other registries that it may 
> have registered it as an External Host. It has been suggested 
> that this might be done through the <poll> command.
> 
> Tim
> 
>