RE: interpretation of 'EPP idempotency'

[Thomas Corte <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>]

Hi Scott,

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> ... Using this
> attribute as an indicator of the current state prior to attempting to
> produce a new state is reasonable.  Likewise, using a different attribute (a
> unique identifier) to determine if an object can be created is also
> reasonable.

But this lack of a *universal* idempotency mechanism requires coming up
with an individual solution whenever new object types (besides
domains/contacts/hosts) should be handled over EPP.


Apart from that, the current solution fails when a registry needs to
weaken constraints for certain objects (temporarily or permanently).

For example, the .info EPP server currently operates in a mode where
multiple domains with the same name may be submitted using EPP commands.
If the same registrar resubmits a domain already submitted, this succeeds
and increases the entry count for this domain. Different registrars may
submit the same domain name, too. Furthermore, domain names submitted
in this mode can not be inquired.
Now, if I want to submit a domain name exactly once, what should I do if
for some reason I do not get the EPP server's response to my submission? I
can't inquire, I can't resubmit without risking a duplicate entry, and I
can't leave it alone if I want to be sure to have an entry in the
repostory.

Admittedly, this is an exceptional situation. But all the registries to
come may have special cases like this, and I think EPP should be able to
handle it.

Why shouldn't EPP get an idempotency mechanism which is independent of
specific object or command semantics?

Regards,

_____

Thomas Corte
<thomas@knipp.de>