Re: Standard of Promptness

• From: John Curran
• Date: Mon Jan 17 22:35:19 2005

At 3:03 PM -0500 1/17/05, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>...
>
>This will work even in the cases where the bogus domain registrant
>submits false contacts, such as happened in panix.com.  There
>shouldn't be any reason to delay reversion to a known former state.

Bill,
 
   You indicate "a" known former state, which implies that you'd allow
   reverting back multiple changes under your proposed scheme...

   Out of curiosity, how far back would you allow one to revert to?
   Any previous state within the last two weeks?  Longer, or shorter?

   Given the potential for disruption through fraudulent demands
   to revert, one has to carry over previous servers for at least this
   interval to be safe, or do I misunderstand your proposal?

/John

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Standard of Promptness David Schwartz

• References:
  • Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Alexei Roudnev
  • Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Christopher L. Morrow
  • Re: The entire mechanism is Wrong! Richard Cox
  • Standard of Promptness William Allen Simpson

• Prev by Date: Re: Registrar and registry backend processes.
• Next by Date: Re: Registrar and registry backend processes.
• Date Index
• Thread Index
• Author Index
• Historical