To:
"Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:47:50 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcWMkOOhZkhFmsCzRsesiNmtPfaNVQAAE3oA
Thread-Topic:
[ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
Thanks for the thoughts, Ed. > I talked this over with the developers in-house - I'd (we'd) > recommend altering the pendingDelete rule (first option). That's what I originally intended with 3915, but it may mean a text change to 3731 to ensure that the intention is clear. Not necessarily a big deal. > 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?) If I remember correctly (and it's possible I won't), all of the "pending" stuff was added as a result of people wanting to allow some sort of offline review/processing before some "final" state was entered. I personally think it makes the protocol a little kludgy, but I believe there was a need to try to match operational realities. > 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. We might be able to avoid a spin if we avoid schema changes. Text changes alone might qualify as "clarifications". Any change to the schemas likely puts us in 1.1 territory. -Scott-