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.