[Ietf-not43] Status element in dreg

[Andrew Newton]

Excellent question.

We've discussed this and it was on my list of items April mentioned. 
I'll refer you back to the original message on the topic:
> http://lists.verisignlabs.com/pipermail/ietf-not43/2003-September/000890.html

But to save time (since I had to go look it up anyway), here's the 
relevant part quoted:

>    Change the status codes in the following way:
> 1) They are contained within a <status> parent element.
> 2) Add a <transferPending> and <other> status values.
> 3) Allow the status elements to have an optional <description 
> language="xx"> child.
> 4) Make it a sequence and not a choice allowing the registry to define 
> the mutual exclusion of status values.
> 
> This allows for localization as before but also accounts for locally 
> defined status values, and mixtures of status values.
> 

Also, if you believe registry-lock and registrar-lock or other values 
are common and not accounted for in the current schema, I think they 
should be added.

-andy

Chris Ambler wrote:
> Okay, specific to the protocol and apropos to the list (I hope).
> 
>  
> 
> I note that there are a fixed number of status elements allowable in a 
> domain element, and none of them cover some of the more typical status 
> possibilities like registry-lock, registrar-lock and the like. Is this 
> deliberate? If so, is there a contemplated method for communicating 
> additional status information, such as the seeAlso element?
> 
>  
> 
> Christopher
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> Ietf-not43 at lists.verisignlabs.com
> https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43