Re: [registrars] PIR's RRP implementation

[Patrick <patrick@gandi.net>]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:47:33PM -0500, Mike Lampson took time to write:
> Is anyone else but me having trouble communicating to PIR that their RRP
> implementation is not compatible with VeriSign and that this is
> unacceptable?  Their tech support staff have a tendency to quote the error
> code definitions from RFC 2832 which is completely unhelpful.

You are unfortunately not the only one having trouble communicating
with PIR about those issues.
We have the same problem. And most of the times the support just
ditch questions with standard answers not pertaining to questions
asked. Or telling me that I should have said so during OT&E.

I recall that in Shanghaï we were being told that the change will be
a 5s shutdown and a direct plug and play for Registrars.
I smiled very much, and I am happy that the facts prove I'm right
now:

1) RRP not compatible, as you described
2) RRP status does not show transfer date (for transfered domain
names)
3) whois totally incompatible with Verisign : no client follows
referrals, sponsoring registrar name not displayed (instead a ugly,
newly made code)
4) reports not available through FTP or any other _automated_ way
5) illogical security procedures : filter on IP address for RRP
access, but not for Web admin one.

and so on...

Contrary to PR statements I have seen, for me, currently, this change
is a nightmare.

Patrick Mevzek
Gandi.

PGP signature