On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:23 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott
<shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
wrote:
7) Section 10.2.3 - The definition of "last changed" event type seems to be
inconsistent with "upDate" defined in RFC 5731,5732,5733. For example, I report
an extract from RFC5731 here in the following:
- An OPTIONAL <domain:upDate> element that contains the date and
time of the most recent domain-object modification. This element
MUST NOT be present if the domain object has never been modified.
So, should we redefine the "last changed" event accordingly? Should we change
all the examples where "last changed" date is equal to "registration" date?
[SAH] I think we can leave this one alone. The meaning seems clear to me since
we also have the registration event. We could change the examples, but before I
do that I'd like to know what people have implemented. Do servers return this
value for an object that has been registered, but never updated?
+1
For a registered but never updated scenario, we return the “last change” date
as well, equal to the “registration” date.
Jasdip
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
