On 2017-08-07 20:55, Gould, James wrote:
> Use of the phase and sub-phase as a mechanism for clients to indicate
> fee or domain grouping categories was not the intent in
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. At the IETF-98 REGEXT WG meeting it
> was unclear when there would be overlapping launch phases.
I think that the launch phase draft itself provides a use case. One of
the examples for the availability check form contains the custom phase
name "idn-release", which most likely refers to a registry introducing a
new set of IDN tables (which may happen years after the TLD initially
launched), making new domains available which were previously not
available, potentially at a different price and most likely with a
different registration model, i.e. as applications rather than immediate
registrations. Such an "idn-release" phase would most likely be run in
parallel to a (perpetually running) "open" phase for ordinary domain names.
> The launch
> phase and sub-phase is meant to cover the launch of the TLD itself,
> where your overlapping phases does not apply to the TLD but to groups
> of domains within the TLD.
The IDN rollout depicted above contains a use case (which as obviously
anticipated by the launch phase draft authors) where groups of domains
are available in different phases.
> I believe use of
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees is the appropriate path forward for the
> grouping of premium domains and not use of phases and sub-phases in
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. If you fully transition to leverage
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees for premium domain grouping, do you have
> any need for overlapping launch phases in
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase, and if so please describe why?
A need for overlapping launch phases might always arise, see above.
Also, nowhere in the launch phase extension draft has the use of
overlapping launch phases been excluded or forbidden. On the contrary,
at one point it is explicitly mentioned that "Domain names may be made
available only in unique launch phases, whilst remaining unavailable for
concurrent launch phases.".
Of course, a "phase-agnostic" implementation of premium domain names is
possible and can indeed be accomplished with the fee extension as it is
That said, the refactoring efforts involved to migrate a registry system
like ours which has been designed in a phase-centric way are
non-negligible. As it currently stands, I'd rather try to stretch the
interpretation of the launch phase/fee extension specs in order to make
them work with our model if need be. That's why I'd rather see the specs
offering a clean solution for our model than forcing us to work around them.
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com
regext mailing list