To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:04:41 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal
Please see comments below: "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > > I think that unless something is really broken with <renew> > > approach, rgp > > syntax changes that may impact operating clients should be avoided. > > But: > > 1. We're talking about an Internet-Draft (meaning "implement at your own > risk!"), and an individual submission that hasn't been commented on very > broadly at that. > > 2. I think we need to come up with something that we can all implement the > same way to maximize interoperability opportunities. > > Part of what I think is broken is that redemption should not necessarily > require an implicit renewal. I prefer the idea of "redeem via update" and > then "renew if necessary". That's two commands, but it's two commands that > are doing very different things. I think "renew if necessary" approach is more flexible than "redeem via update". I covers situations when rgp restore involves renewals and situation when it does not. Approach "redeem via update" does not offer such flexibility it assumes that renewal will never be a part of rgp restore. The wording for <renew> command in rgp draft document could be modified to indicate that the absence of period element in <renew> part or value ZERO should indicate that renewal should not be a part of rgp restore. Another option would be to force server to ignore the value of <period> element and assume certain value. > > > If people are already doing RGP as an extended renewal, what are they doing > about the renewal part of the command? I am aware of one implementation that just ignores the value of <period> element and assumes ZERO if rgp extension is present. > > > -Scott- Janusz Sienkiewicz