On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Anderson, Marc <mcanderson@verisign.com> wrote:
The proposed extension certainly does not meet the intent of the PDP working group. In fact adding an additional expiration field to the Registry Whois output would seem to me to make Registry response inconsistent with the 2013 RAA.
So the intent of the PDP working group was to have consistency of protocol labels but ignore consistency in the meaning of those protocol labels? As a member of the general public (I don't work for a domain registry or registrar), I certainly find it helpful to know when the registry and registrar have a difference of opinion on how to deliver the service I am paying them to deliver. Therefore I see nothing wrong with this proposal. -andy