To:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>
Date:
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:36:19 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.30.0109251424010.14993-100000@loki.ar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: <check> Response Attribute
At 2:24 PM -0700 9/25/01, Rick H Wesson wrote: >Jordyn, > >If the name is available then yes is the only answer, if the domains is >not available or MAYBE availabe then no is the appropiate answer. Hmm? From a registrar perspective, if the registry says a name is *not* available, then I am not going to try to register a name. If it might be available or might not be, I would probably try. "Maybe" seems closer to "available" than "not available" in my mind. I'm open to suggestions that we could supplement the "available" or "not available" responses with codes to indicate uncertainty, but it seems like an indeterminate state is a possible one that we should get a grip on before deciding that <check> is only going to boolean. Ed R. raised the point of asynchrony, which I alluded to earlier. What if the EPP implementation is just a frontend to a non-realtime process? Is it desirable to try and accomodate such a situation? I think probably yes, which means we need to be able to deal with indeterminate responses. Jordyn