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

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

Oscar,
you're right, it is a new (different) field than the "last modification
date" field.

as you (and others) have noted - there are some kinks to be worked out --
for example, what is the definition of "verified", whose responsibility is
it to "verify", who will bear the costs of verification, what are the
consequences if a name is in "unverified" state... substantial questions
that can be answered, but that require some thought.

i'm working with rick to help flesh this out some more.

see you soon
-ram
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>
To: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc: <abel@able-towers.com>; "'Ram Mohan'" <rmohan@afilias.info>;
<nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:11 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element


> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>