My feedback is provided below “JG-“.
Overall, I believe that “phase-agnostic” premium domain names is not a model
that draft-ietf-regext-launchphase is designed for or should be designed for.
My recommendation is to focus on how draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees can meet your
needs for premium domain names without coupling it with launch phases as an
alternative for fee classifications.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
On 8/8/17, 5:11 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte" <regext-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote:
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.
JG- draft-ietf-regext-launchphase does support multiple launch phases in
sequence or in parallel to meet the needs of launching a TLD, but what you
describe is not a launch phase by releasing previously reserved domain names
(e.g., “idn-release”). There are many approaches that can be taken for the
releasing of reserved domain names and I don’t see defining a parallel custom
launch phase to the open launch phase as an effective one. Someone could
attempt to morph the releasing of reserved domain names into a launch phase,
but it is not what draft-ietf-regext-launchphase was designed for.
> 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.
JG-The launch phases fundamentally define the registration flow that is
expected of the client, so it is cross-cutting for a TLD that does not work
well for a subset of domain names.
> 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.
JG-I agree that there may be a use case where a domain name may be available in
only specific launch phases, but it is a corner case that is already supported
by draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees. I don’t believe that “phase-agnostic” premium
domain names is a model that draft-ietf-regext-launchphase is designed for or
should be designed for. My recommendation is to focus on how
draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees can meet your needs for premium domain names without
coupling it with launch phases as an alternative for fee classifications.
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
regext mailing list