[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:37:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07B5E434@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

At 10:35 -0400 7/11/05, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>This can be addressed in a few different ways:
>
>- Modify 3731 to change the pendingDelete rule in a
>non-RGP-extension-specific way.
>- Modify 3915 to note that the extended <domain:update> is an exception
>to the pendingDelete rule.  This was my original intention, but I agree
>that it's not clearly specified that way.  Section 4.2.5 already does
>this for a related update situation.
>- Modify 3915 extensively to perform RGP processing some other way.
>
>There may be other possibilities.  Opinions?

I talked this over with the developers in-house - I'd (we'd) 
recommend altering the pendingDelete rule (first option).

For one, this minimizes the changes to the documented specificiations 
(and hence code).

And, stepping back a bit, why have a "pendingX" if X can't be 
prevented?  (I understand that there may be latency in doing X, but 
as far as a protocol like EPP is concerned, why distinguish the 
pending state?)

>So, this is a request for information.  Have any other conflicts or
>ambiguities been discovered?  Depending on what we find we may be able
>to move the documents to Draft Standard status by making editorial
>changes (such as fixing examples).  Protocol changes (text or XML
>Schema) typically require a re-spin at Proposed Standard before they can
>be advanced to Draft.  Applications AD Ted Hardie can provide more
>guidance once we know what needs to be changed.  We might even need to
>create a new working group if significant issues are identified.

Do you think that this change needs a re-spin at PS?  (Not that it 
matters much, the "6-month delay" required as *one* of the steps to 
DS was spent in the RFC editor queue last time we made it to PS. ;) ) 
Maybe with a change like this we ought to dub it EPP 1.1.

BTW - I've seen references to EPP "v6".  I'm assuming that that is 
the -06 drafts, not a successor to the RFC version nor EPP for IPv6.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.

Home | Date list | Subject list