Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Hi all, In order to achieve progress, I’m trying to summarize the discussion: 1. Most folks agree there may be a need for phase discovery. When there are multiple phases for registration, and there are real world examples for that, being able to discover the phase a domain is viable in through

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

On 14/08/2017 19:27, Gould, James wrote: > As a co-author of Launch Phase Mapping going back 5 years and the one that > added the “Domain names may be made available only in unique launch phases, > whilst remaining unavailable for concurrent launch phases” language to the > draft, I’m aware of

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Thomas, As a co-author of Launch Phase Mapping going back 5 years and the one that added the “Domain names may be made available only in unique launch phases, whilst remaining unavailable for concurrent launch phases” language to the draft, I’m aware of the intent. Wil and Gavin can also

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Thomas, Yes, I really meant “phase-aware” premium domain names. Launch phases in draft-ietf-regext-launchphase are associated with the TLD and launch phases are not meant to be a method of grouping domain names like premium domain names. I view overlapping launch phases as a corner case that

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

James, On 2017-08-08 16:25, Gould, James wrote: > 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. I assume you mean "phase-aware". By "phase-agnostic", I meant the opposite, i.e. the

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Thomas, 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

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Hello James, 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

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Hello Roger, On 2017-08-07 18:50, Roger D Carney wrote: > Good Morning, > > Thomas, I think the Fee draft can handle your use case of using launch > phase for premium names (a premium string is only available in one > phase/subphase combination so if client does not pass phase you should >

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Hello Jody, On 2017-08-07 18:53, Jody Kolker wrote: > When a domain is sold to a customer, a check command is sent first to > determine the availability. That check command can be sent without any phase > attributes. > According to the spec when this is done the phase that is currently

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

' issue. Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 10:19 AM To: Thomas Corte <thomas.co...@knipp.de>; regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] TLD Phase Dis

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Hello Jody, On 07/08/2017 18:27, Jody Kolker wrote: > In this paragraph, it sounds like the domain:create command does not need a > fee to be sent into create the premium domain. It only needs the correct > phase? Is that correct? Yes, requiring registrars to specify the correct phase was

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

s Corte Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 10:58 AM To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery James, On 07/08/2017 17:18, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > My feedback is provided below with a “JG-“ prefix

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

xt [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Corte Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 10:58 AM To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery James, On 07/08/2017 17:18, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > My

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

, 2017 10:58 AM To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery James, On 07/08/2017 17:18, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > My feedback is provided below with a “JG-“ prefix. > > From a high

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

James, On 07/08/2017 17:18, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > My feedback is provided below with a “JG-“ prefix. > > From a high level, we need other registries and registrars to weigh in on > this topic to answer the following: > ... I can see the reasoning behind this outreach, though

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Thomas, I believe the domain-level availability based on launch phases is a corner case that as you point out is currently supported by the Availability Check Form in draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. Providing trial-and-error probing is sort of the point of the Check Command and its extensions,

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

Gould, James 2017-08-03 18:13 > I believe TLD level EPP policies is relevant, but is best suited for > something outside of the Launch Phase or Registry Fee command-response > extensions. An example policy EPP mapping is the Registry Mapping >

Re: [regext] TLD Phase Discovery

daddy.com> Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:03 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] TLD Phase Discovery Good Morning, Coming out of Prague I mentioned that I would post to the list the idea of a Launch Phase Mapping/List feature. I believe the