Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

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

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>I wonder if the answer is to make some of the update prohibitions
>more granular?  I know it's sort of ugly, but it's consistent with
>the use-cases we've actually seen.
>
>
>  
>

Introduction of more granular update prohibited status values without 
breaking <update> command into a set of corresponding lower granulity 
<update> commands would break existing protocol structure. Currently 
there is a direct link between each prohibited status and EPP command. 
The main purpose of each prohibited status is to indicate that the 
corresponding EPP command should fail on any object that has the status 
value set. The direct link between prohibited statuses and EPP commands 
has positive implication on client and server implementations of the 
protocol. After breaking updateProhibited status into lower granulity 
statues without breaking <update> command the link will be broken. The 
use of the protocol for automated  processing will be more difficult. It 
will be less obvious to the client and server to determine whether a 
particular command can be provisioned or not. The syntax of XML requests 
will have  to be compared against the state of  domain objects to make  
such decisions.

I can see some value of breaking updatedProhibited status into a set of 
more specific prohibited status values provided that <update> command is 
also broken into a set of corresponding more specific commands however I 
am aware that would be a drastic and controversial protocol change.

Janusz