To:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
janusz <janusz@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<a06200712bf28090beb0d@[10.31.32.63]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
Edward, even if we have "SHOULD...that did not directly" and "MAY" sending transfer and pending action <poll> notifications will be still mandatory. The behaviour of those classes of <poll> messages is determined not just by the text we are contemplating to change but also by the text of 2.9.3.4 in 3730 and texts of 3.2.6 in 3731, 3732 and 3733. Mandatory nature of transfer and pending action <poll> notifications is acceptable because for both classes of messages the protocol defines a way of passing object specific information so interoperable implementations are feasible. For other more generic classes of <poll> messages like auto-renewal, deletion, ... meaningfull interoperable implementations are not feasible. Therefore it is reasonable to use a weeker word than MUST in the text of 2.9.2.3 in 3730. Cheers, Janusz Sienkiewicz Edward Lewis wrote: > Yeah - my "objection" is purely in the sense that "can" is not covered > by RFC 2119. I agree that the MUST causes heartburn, so I am fine > with moving off that. And Janusz is right that we aren't talking > "MUST NOT", so I am fine with that. > > But perhaps there is something I need to hammer out. In my text > proposal, I have "MUST...that did not directly" and "MAY". I did this > to make sure we still cover other "elements" that need to know of an > action. I used MAY for all, as this means "its permitted, but not > necessary." I.e., the initiator and responder ought to tolerate being > told of a transfer request, but the other party must be told. > > Is that what we are going towards? > > At 16:42 -0400 8/16/05, Michael Young wrote: > >> 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, >>> ... >>> >