To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>
Date:
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:35:29 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07D92E11@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] 3731bis Submitted
Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> 2005-09-09 20:31 > 3. Changed text in Section 3.2.1.4 from "At least one <domain:add>, > <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element MUST be provided." to "At > least one <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element > MUST be provided if the command is not being extended. All of > these elements MAY be omitted if an <update> extension is > present.". After this goes in, should the RFC3915 also be updated, as section 4.2.5. EPP <update> Command currently has: Section 3.2.5 of the EPP domain mapping describes the elements that have to be specified within an <update> command. The requirement to provide at least one <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element is updated by this extension such that at least one empty <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element MUST be present if this extension is specified within an <update> command. This requirement is updated to disallow the possibility of modifying a domain object as part of redemption grace period recovery processing. If I understand everything correctly, an empty <domain:update> should be enough ? -- Patrick Mevzek Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>