To:
"'Michael Young'" <myoung@libertyrms.info>, "'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.info>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "Nylund, Joel" <Jnylund@verisign.com>
From:
"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
Date:
Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:55:06 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal
Mike, What I meant by making the renew feature subordinate to the rgp command is that as with transfer, create, and renew, there is the ability to specify the registration period. If rgp has an optional renew feature, than it to should have the ability to specify the registration period. I did not mean to make an rgp renew command, but to simply add an optional <rgp:period> element to allow for it. By latching a completely different action (i.e. rgp:report) to an existing one (i.e. domain:renew, domain:update, or domain:delete) the only thing that is being reused might be the verb name and maybe one or two other attributes. The reuse of the verb doesn't make sense since it doesn't really match the intent of the new action and the reuse of the attribute still leaves open what to do with the attributes that are not reused (i.e. ignore, report error). A command-response extension is perfect for adding attributes that weren't previously defined, but not for changing the entire meaning of the action. Sending an rgp:report with a domain:renew is a good example of a misuse of a command-response extension, since it has absolutely nothing to do with renew. When I reviewed the EPP specifications and saw the Protocol Extension, I believed that it was the answer for these kinds of problems. As I stated before, rgp could be implemented as an extension to any one of the standard commands, but this is like writing a single doIt function that takes a large number of arguments were the values make sense in one context but not in another. I prefer the OO concept of adding a new method. Based on this thread, I need clarification of a best practice for use of the EPP Protocol Extension. I have another extension that I'm considering making a Protocol Extension, based on the same reasoning. It looks like sticking with the existing verbs is preferred by some over adding new ones. Any comments from the Registrars? JG James F. Gould VeriSign Naming and Directory Services jgould@verisign.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@libertyrms.info] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:15 PM To: 'Gould, James'; 'janusz sienkiewicz'; 'Hollenbeck, Scott' Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:16 PM To: 'janusz sienkiewicz'; Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal Scott & Janusz, I agree that specifying a period of zero is cleaner if the renew command is extended for rgp. I still believe that the command-response extension is the wrong way to go for rgp. Server functions would have to be updated to differentiate between a standard renew and an rgp (request & report) renew. MY- I don't see why this is more effort that introducing a new command. If verb extensions are made by extending either renew or update, than the registry has to make policy decisions related to what standard attributes to ignore or report errors on. MY- that problem exists in EPP implementations already - we have to deal this already - no added burden there. I prefer making the validation more explicit using an XML schema. Morphing a renew or update into an rgp request or rgp report is mixing verbs that really don't belong together. -MY since the whole RGP implementation is essentially a settlement action; it seems perfectly reasonable to extend either the renew or delete commands as they are associated with the transactions that lead (or don't lead)to the settlement action. Renew is a better choice as its less overloaded than the delete command. I don't see a valid argument here for burdening registrars with a new command. The VNDS rgp does not have a renew feature, so logically it shouldn't involve a renew command. -MY I still don't see how this is relevant to the discussion, if anything its driving the argument to extend the delete command which I am sure no one wants to do. Similarly, while a domain is in pendingDelete status we don't allow any updates to it, but if rgp is mixed with an update than what do we do about the specified updates? If we disallow all updates for an rgp command, than there is no point in making it an extension of the update command. If rgp has a renew feature, make the renew function subordinate to the rgp request command and not the other way around. If rgp is not a good candidate for a protocol extension than what is? -MY If your argument is that extending renew is confusing to registrars, then how do you defend suggesting an RGP specific renew command - you don't think that one renew command plus an extension renew command under an RGP command is not a little more difficult to follow - this is re-inventing the wheel just to make it round again. There are implementations in place using the renew command extensions; I don't see the point in revisiting this with these arguments. They are not compelling enough to warrant starting this thread all over again. -Michael Young JG James F. Gould VeriSign Naming and Directory Services jgould@verisign.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of janusz sienkiewicz Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:29 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: '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-