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

["Michael Young" <myoung@ca.afilias.info>]

Hi Edward 

"Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an action"
  
Likewise I don't understand why this change would invalidate any existing
implementations, which is why Scott proposed it this way.  MUST replaced
with SHOULD or "can" does not cause an issue with existing code.  Retaining
"MUST" however puts us back to square one in resolving the raised issue - so
I don't see leaving it unmodified as a viable option.

I am perfectly happy to settle for softening it to a SHOULD versus "can" if
you find that language confusing.


Michael Young 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On
Behalf Of janusz
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:32 PM
To: Edward Lewis
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal

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, 
> ...
>