Hello James, >> I am not sure to understand the example for the autopurge. >> If the registry deletes a domain with an immediate purge I expect the >> domain not to exist anymore. But in your example you show the "after" >> state >> and there you have a domain:name and a domain:clID still... but the >> domain >> should not exist anymore. >> In my view you should have the before state with all domain:infDatq, and >> for the >> after state, there should be no domain data anymore. >> I agree it creates a problem as you loose the domain name itself >> in the message, but I still think there should be no domain >> data if it was purged. >> What do you think? > > I thought about this one, and yes this is a grey area. I believe it’s > more important to keep the use of the required “after” state here. The > use of the “before” state is optional and I don’t want to add complexity > by adding support for it here. In this case, the operation is > identifying to the client that the specified record that is included was > purged from the system.
On a purely semantic level I still find it wrong to have an "after" purge message reflecting data as if the domain still exists. This will need to be handled by registrars as a specific case, since they could, for example, not always update their database based on the "after" messages because in this specific case if they do it like that they will see the domain existing, where it was deleted. So that message will have a specific handling just for it. -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
