RE: Some More Off-List Comments

["Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>]

Yes, this extra information is needed.  Many errors generated by the server
business logic are mapped to the EPP result codes, but that is not enough
information for a Registrar or CSR to track down the exact reason for the
error.  If the server knows what caused the error (i.e. "Credit limit has
been exceeded", "foo.com is reserved", "Must have admin contact")
it would be helpful for it to be able to return the reason to the client.
This will save calls to CSR's with errors that are obvious 
from the reason.  The reason can be made optional, so there should be no
impact to existing implementations, and by adding it a substantial amount of
effort will be saved in handling Registrar issues.  

Jim

> ----------
> From: 	Daniel Manley
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 7, 2002 3:12 PM
> To: 	ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: 	Re: Some More Off-List Comments
> 
> Is all this extra information really needed?  Registrars should be 
> validating as much information as possible before sending to the 
> registry.  This would weed out 95% of problem data.  To now add reasons 
> to values makes the registry hold the registrar's hand where the 
> registrar should be smarter than your average registrant.  All of this 
> user-friendliness also adds more development burden on the registry.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Daniel Manley [mailto:dmanley@tucows.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:38 PM
> >>To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> >>Cc: 'lynettek@netnumber.com'; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> >>Subject: Re: Some More Off-List Comments
> >>
> >>
> >>Shouldn't the "reason" tie in with the array of <values>?  
> >>Because each 
> >>field could have a different reason.
> >>
> >
> >Sure, I suppose it could.
> >
> >-Scott-
> >
> 
> 
>