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 14:29:06 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal
I also prefer required zero value for RGP situations. Such behavior would improve interoperatibility of RGP implementations. Janusz Sienkiewicz "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > > 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. > > I've thought about the zero value being appropriate here. It's certainly an > approach. > > > 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. > > Oooh, accepting a non-zero value and ignoring it isn't a very good idea. > That would make data reconciliation very difficult in the future if one > tries to reconcile a non-zero-period <renew> command that was processed > without error, but with no change to the expiration date. I'd rather > require a period of zero for RGP situations. > > > -Scott-