Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

[janusz <janusz@ca.afilias.info>]

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>>Lets consider a scenario when a deletion policy prohibits any 
>>updates of 
>>domain objects between enetering pendingDelete state and rgp restore 
>>request. If serverUpdateProhibited status is used then rgp restore 
>>request should not be accepted because it is an extension of <update> 
>>command. From the other hand I don not see any mechanism within EPP 
>>protocol to protect the domain object from client updates and at the 
>>same time allowing <update> requests with rgp restore extension.
>>
>>The "conflict" I described is not as severe as the original 
>>one but it 
>>can be treated as an inconsistency between 3731 and 3915 
>>documents. The 
>>inconsistency could be removed if rgp restore was defined as 
>>a new EPP 
>>command versus an extension to <update> command.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, a new EPP command could prevent this scenario.  Unfortunately, it's
>inconsistent with the guidance presented in RFC 3735.  If we're going to
>modify both 3731 and 3915 (and I'm suggesting that we should) we have an
>opportunity to write text to ensure that the protocol and the
>ICANN-defined policy are consistent.
>
>-Scott-
>  
>

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to take a look at 3735 to include a 
provision to handle this type of scenarios.

The sample scenario with deletion policy could point to a larger class 
of cases. A registry implementer may try to extend EPP protocol to 
support a new policy. The EPP extension guidelines defined in RFC 3735 
may indicate that an extension to existing EPP command should be chosen. 
From the other hand the policy may require accepting the extension when 
a relevant prohibited status is set.

It may not be obvious to all EPP implementers how the protocol should be 
extended in cases of conflict between 3735 and policy requirements.

Janusz Sienkiewicz