To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>
Date:
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:33:30 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07E20EFE@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP to Draft: Next Steps
Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> 2005-09-20 16:14 > > There are minor incompatibilites between the two (among which how to > > fill <domain:update> in case of an extension), so it seems worthwile > > to me to be able to clearly separates between the two, as some > > servers will implement one version, and some will implement the > > other. > > Given that the schemas have not changed, and the version numbers > identify the namespaces and schemas, I don't see the need to increment > the version numbers. Anything that was working a certain way before > should continue to work the same way with the proposed text changes. I believe not, or there is something I do not understand, so please correct me. The current RFC, mandates something in domain:update, either add, rem or chg. (btw the schema does not seem to reflect that if I read it correctly, as all three elements are in a sequence with minOccurs=0) For an extension, there is thus the need of an empty domain:chg with true changes in the extension part. Your third point in 3731bis states: 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.". This means to me that an empty domain:chg is not needed anymore in domain:update if there is an extension in use during the domain:update As examples, see RFC3915 : C: <update> C: <domain:update C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" C: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 C: domain-1.0.xsd"> C: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name> C: <domain:chg/> C: </domain:update> C: </update> C: <extension> [..] and compare it to draft-hollenbeck-epp-secdns-08.txt : C: <update> C: <domain:update C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" C: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 C: domain-1.0.xsd"> C: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name> C: </domain:update> C: </update> C: <extension> [..] My current understanding is that RFC3915 is indeed correct related to the current RFC3731, and not secdns-08, but after the changes in rfc3731bis, secdns-08 is correct, and the empty domain:chg in rfc3915 can be removed. However in the mean time, a server using rfc3731 and enforcing the rule: "At least one <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element MUST be provided." will reject a change as done in the secdns-08 example. So a client connecting to a RFC3731 or RFC3731bis server should act in two different ways, hence my request to be able to separate automatically those two cases. -- Patrick Mevzek Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>