RE: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element

["Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>]

Rick,
Thanks, so the field is actually different from the one used for "last 
modification date", and should be an action defined by the registry and 
likely to be delegated to its registrars, right?

Oscar


At 01:01 AM 10/27/2002, Rick Wesson wrote:

>the concept is at the protocol level so its up to the registry to define
>what "verification" is. the proposal specificly has to do with epp.
>
>
>-rick
>
>
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Oscar A. Robles-Garay wrote:
>
> > Ram,
> >
> > Some WHOIS services already show the last time of "modification. Id this
> > date the sames as the verification? Or are you thinking that the
> > verification is a process conduted by the registrar(y?) to make sure the
> > information is correct?
> >
> > Oscar
> >
> >
> > At 05:49 PM 10/26/2002, Abel Wisman wrote:
> > >I couldn't agree more but only wonder why so many in so many different
> > >different ways are trying to re-invent wheels
> > >
> > >Kind regards
> > >
> > >Abel
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
> > >Of Ram Mohan
> > >Sent: 26 October 2002 14:07
> > >To: nc-whois@dnso.org
> > >Cc: Rick H Wesson
> > >Subject: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element
> > >
> > >
> > >Task Force Members:
> > >For those of you not following the various technical events happening in
> > >IETF, this one is of value.  Rick & I have been discussing the value of
> > >adding a new field to the WHOIS, called "Last Verified" date that allows
> > >registrars/registry to show when the information was last verified.
> > >
> > >It has now been proposed formally to the IETF EPP Working Group, and is
> > >on a fast track.
> > >
> > >Similarly, a WHOIS element called <private>, introduced by other IETF
> > >working group members (to allow for privacy) is on a fast track.
> > >
> > >We have debated both these items in our TF, and I believe that this is a
> > >step in the right direction for domain name registrants worldwide.
> > >
> > >-ram
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
> > >To: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
> > >Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; <ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com>;
> > ><iesg@ietf.org>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:34 AM
> > >Subject: Last-Verified Date Contact Element
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Scott && IESG,
> > > >
> > > > I realized that there is an item we have overlooked in the wg. In
> > > > private conversations, myself and others have noted that there is no
> > > > way to identify the last time a contact object was verified.
> > > >
> > > > I propose that we add a "Last-Verified" date element to the contact
> > > > object so that registries/registrars may express the last time the
> > > > object was verified. Since contacts have no expiration date and the
> > > > "last-modified" date is irreverent to verification.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that this will aid in identifying old, stale and irreverent
> > > > data within a registry and if the element is published in CRISP or
> > > > whois to the community in general.
> > > >
> > > > I know it is late in the game for identifing issues with the epp
> > > > proposals so I have CCed the IESG.
> > > >
> > > > -rick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >