[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:58:26 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07C92974@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Comments: draft-sullivan-epp-experience

In my response to this, I forgot to mention one other thing.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:05:14AM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> updated.  Here's the text that should be removed from section 2.3:

[. . .]

> be updated to remove this text.  If a registry wants to prevent updates
> during one of the "pending" states, it can do so by explicitly setting
> one of the "prohibited" status values.

I've also ended up arguing that the "linked" status should be
similarly unconnected to prohibitions.  The general idea is that if a
repository operator wants a policy prohibiting some action or other,
then the operator should place such a prohibition on the object. 
Nothing else should entail such a prohibition.  

The "linked" status doesn't strictly prohibit deletion itself;
instead, 3732 has this: "A host name object MUST NOT be deleted if
the host object is associated with any other object."  Similarly, 3733
has this: "A contact object SHOULD NOT be deleted if it is associated
with other known objects."  I can see an argument for preserving the
latter; but the former is surely a policy decision, and ought to be
left to the repository operator.

I realise that this proposal may be more controversial than the one
to unhook the prohibitiond from the "pending" states.  But even
though this is expressing a policy that is a good idea -- don't allow
deletions of an object if anything else refers to it -- it's still a
policy, and therefore something that a repository operator might want
to change in some circumstance we haven't imagined yet.  Since the
prohibitions are already possible using some other status, there's no
reason to use this status to enforce the prohibitions.  (I think the
linked status is worth keeping, because one might use it as the basis
of policy.)

Thoughts?

A

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


Home | Date list | Subject list