To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:22:54 -0700
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Comments on draft-ietf-provreg-epp-beep-02.txt
I looked over draft-ietf-provreg-epp-beep-02.txt briefly. I noticed a few minor items I thought would be worth addressing... 2. "Fully processes?" Note that some sort of answer needs to be returned for every BEEP message. You might want to make this clear, or perhaps it's already implicit in the description of <logout> in the other documents. 2.1.2 Consider service "epp_beep" since EPP runs over other TCP-based transports as well. In the example, the second L: should be I: 2.1.4 Text "EPP" is duplicated. "Sent over the EPP EPP session" I'm not sure you should specify that piggyback data must be piggybacked. This is more an optimization than a semantic difference. Perhaps "MAY be piggybacked" is better. Note that some toolkits don't even tell you whether the data was piggybacked or not. 2.1.7 You might want to mention what the semantics of a single EPP channel being closed without a <logout> is supposed to do. Something like "this is equivalent to a <logout> with no attributes or child elements." You might also want to mention explicitly that it's OK to close the BEEP channel after the <logout> has been fully processed, in order that resources could be reclaimed. Thanks for your attention! -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.