[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] FW: Request for Comments on IRTP Response

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
Here is Scott's response to our request for a 'sanity check' of the
technical information provided in the comments to the initial report.
Given that this is rather straight forward, I am not sure that it would
be beneficial for Scott to join the call on Tuesday.  If anyone
disagrees and would like for him to attend, please let me know and I
will ask if he is available.  Thanks much.
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services

 

________________________________

From: Hollenbeck, Scott 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:22 AM
To: Steele, Barbara
Subject: RE: Request for Comments on IRTP Response


I only found one thing I disagree with:
 
"Sadely, there is no way, nor requirement, for the registry and the
current sponsoring registrar to document why they reject a transfer (no
provision for that in EPP)"
 
EPP allows the registry operator to include text with every response to
a command.  The rationale for rejecting a transfer can be documented
using this feature if the registry operator chooses to include
appropriate text in the response.  Messages can also be enqueued for
client (registrar) retrieval via the <poll> command to document rejected
transfers.
 
I didn't see anything else that was obviously incorrect.

-Scott-