To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Patrick <patrick@gandi.net>
Date:
Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:07:43 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<a05100c22b7d698ebe75e@[192.168.2.116]>; from jordyn@register.com on Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 04:28:14PM -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: <check> Response Attribute
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 04:28:14PM -0400, Jordyn A. Buchanan took time to write: > At 10:30 AM -0400 9/25/01, Edward Lewis wrote: > >The rational behind #1 is that either a name is or is not available. > >Although future extentions are always a consideration, extending the > ><check> command is of questionable value. > > Not to make things too complicated, but what about when the status of > a name is unknown (for example, if someone built an EPP frontend to a > less automated system). Is this sort of scenario worth recognizing > in the protocol design? In that case I think this EPP server does not support at all the Check command, whose purpose is to check the availability. If the EPP server is not able to process Check commands, it should reply back with an error code of 2101 ``Unimplemented command'' in my POV. Patrick.