Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

[Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 05:18:45PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  Is the prohibition (or any prohibition) 
> are "business rule" that can be forced up the stack?  Is there a 
> reason the protocol needs to define this - is it an interoperability 
> issue?

Well, some people have argued as much to me.  I sort of don't see it,
though: if there's no implicit restriction from pending*, then the
other server*Prohibited status values are the ones to use, and it's
totally obvious from looking at the status values what you may and
may not do.  Of course, this complicates status handling.  Maybe
that's the reason people wanted the implicit effects -- they think it
is easier to code.

> Can a registrar deal with one registry that prohibits one action 
> during a pendingDelete and still deal with another registry that 
> permits the same action?   I think that's one question which will say 
> whether we need to retain the prohibition.

I've been assuming that you don't get to prohibit stuff implicitly
under the changed rules: if you want a prohibition, use the right
prohibited status.  Again, as I've said, I'm not perfectly sure about
this yet, although I haven't come up with a good argument against it. 

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110