RE: [ietf-provreg] 3731bis Submitted

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:35 AM
> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> 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 ?

Correct.

-Scott-