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 is already handled by draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. The availability of domain names by phase is already handled by draft-ietf-regext-launchphase with the Availability Check Form, which may not be optimized for your use case but does handle the intended purpose of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. Considering these points, I don’t believe that adding a Phase Availability Check Form is warranted. If there is additional interest in adding a Phase Availability Check Form to draft-ietf-regext-launchphase by the working group, please share it publically on the list or privately.
Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 8/8/17, 11:41 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: 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 model you're proposing - premium domains which are not connected to or dependent on launch phases. > 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. As said in a previous e-mail, a complete refactoring of our premium model seems prohibitively expensive at this juncture, since all our tariff management, promotion infrastructure, registration policy engine code etc. is closely tied to launch phases. We might be able to still retain our use of the fee extension, if only by completely hiding any launch phase related data from it, even if the system still works with launch phases under the hood. If all else fails, we can always use a proprietary extension. Still, and this is going back to the original topic of phase discovery: if it was clearly (as I demonstrated out in a previous e-mail) the intention of the launch phase extension authors to allow multiple phases at the same time, and to make certain domain names only available in certain phases, why should we make it so hard for registrars to discover the right phase for their domain? Why not offer a "phase-avail" check form to discover the phase in which a domain is available, rather than forcing *all* registrars to code their own iteration of <check>s over all known (for some definition of "known") launch phases to discover it? Best regards, Thomas -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Deutschland Dipl.-Informatiker Tel: +49 231 9703-0 Thomas Corte Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Stellvertretender Leiter SIP: thomas.co...@knipp.de Software-Entwicklung E-Mail: thomas.co...@knipp.de Registereintrag: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Geschäftsführer: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
