Re: [ietf-provreg] Services messages in RFC 3730

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 01:23:43PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> to everyone (as you say, "it should all be OPTIONAL"), documenting a new
> feature (adding priority marks to messages and allowing a client to
> specify how they wish to deal with the priorities) in a standard
> extension seems like the least intrusive way to make the functionality
> available for these reasons 

[&c.]

I think an extension would be a good idea, too, as long as we make
the current poll queue optional.  In fact, if the requirements in RFC
3730 2.9.2.3 were a little weaker, I'd already have proposed an
extension.

It might be, in fact, that the only thing needed to facilitate that
is a weakening of this: "Service messages MUST be created for all
clients affected by an action on an object."  This is in line with
the suggestion Jim already made.

I'm all for making any changes as painless as possible.  Because I
did have to support two protocols in production at one time, I am
happy to agree with your observation that keeping both going at once
is going to be something shy of fun.  So if there is some way to
address the issues folks have with the existing protocol without
changing it, I'm certainly not opposed.  (But also, of course, if
we're forced to accept a protocol change, I'd much rather see it
happen now, before the installed base gets any bigger.)

A


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