Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal

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

Edward,
if your code conforms to the OLD text then it should conform to the NEW 
version. Nobody is proposing replacing MUST with MUST NOT. 

The NEW text looks reasonable to me. It keeps existing EPP deployments 
still within protocol compliance.

Cheers,

Janusz Sienkiewicz


Edward Lewis wrote:

> At 14:04 -0400 8/16/05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:27:56PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>  NEW:
>>>  Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an 
>>> action on
>>>  an object that did not directly execute the action.  For  example,
>>>  <transfer> actions can be reported to the client that has the 
>>> authority
>>>  to approve or reject a transfer request.  Other methods of 
>>> server-client
>>>  action notification, such as offline reporting, are also possible and
>>>  are beyond the scope of this specification.
>>
>>
>> I like this, myself.  Do we want to make the "can"s in there SHOULDs
>> instead?  (I don't, really, but this is a pretty dramatic weakening
>> from the MUST we had before.  Looking at the archives, there seem to
>> have been some people arguing for a much more important poll queue.)
>
>
> The change confuses me.  Instead of relaxing from MUST to SHOULD, the 
> change eliminates any "standards" words.
>
> The code base we have currently conforms to the "OLD" spec.  We don't 
> have a problem with it, hence we are reluctant to want to see the spec 
> changed (in a way that is "not backwards compatible").  Not so much 
> because we are against change but because we'd like to avoid having to 
> redistribute software (or require new software be written by clients 
> that contact us).
>
> It might be that the service message requirement as in "OLD" is 
> suboptimal because it requires a service message go back to the 
> initiator.  But we'd rather keep this practice and just recognize (and 
> then drop) the unnecessary message than have to replace software.  
> Keeping in mind that the current way of passing messages is only 
> sub-optimal, not unworkable.
>
> Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on my part of what problem the 
> extraneous message causes.
>
> Still, I would have thought the new text would have been:
>
> Service messages MUST be created for all clients affected by an action on
> an object that did not directly execute the action, and MAY be created 
> for
> others affected (including the initiator).  For  example, ...
>