To:
"Andrew Sullivan" <andrew@ca.afilias.info>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:44:00 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcWO0fRrIugXHT2hQTm1OVa+H9ftewAAQb7w
Thread-Topic:
[ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se > [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:11 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:57:32AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: > > Does this need to be done in the protocol? (One of my litmus test > > questions.) > > I think it has to be _possible_ in the protocol, anyway; and today, I > think, it isn't. (I may be wrong, of course. I'm always happy to be > corrected.) The problem I see with trying to match status values to object attributes is that the attributes aren't static. More can be added by extension, and then what? Do we need to go back and update the domain mapping to deal with new extension attributes? It makes much more sense to deal with special cases using extensions. Which leads me to this: there *is* a way to deal with this in the protocol right now: - Do not use serverUpdateProhibited at all if you wish to allow some updates, but not others. - Define an extension to add new status values that match local registry update policy. -Scott-