RE: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?

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

 Eugenio I also have to support James. This doesn't seem scalable for the
core protocol, an extension seems the most appropriate place for it.

I could see how in an extension you could address a lot of concerns, i.e.
queueing a large request, applying policy rules to frequency of these types
of requests, etc. 

I am looking forward to your I-D.

Best Regards,

Michael Young 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On
Behalf Of James Gould
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:24 AM
To: Eugenio Pinto; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?

Eugenio,

We have not had a need to support a bulk form of query in EPP.  This had
come up several times, but we kept the EPP protocol strictly a provisioning
protocol and left the bulk information up to reports.  I know that a bulk
query would be a real problem for a Registry like COM/NET.


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Senior Software Engineer
VeriSign Information Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063


21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.


> From: Eugenio Pinto <eugenio.pinto@fccn.pt>
> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:02:36 +0100
> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I don't know if this subject was already discussed in the past, in the 
> provreg-wg, but I need some opinions about it.
> 
> As a Provisioning Protocol I'm wondering if it shouldn't be there 
> another query command besides <check>, <info> and <transfer> that 
> would allow us to retrieve all the objects actually provisioned by a
repository.
> 
> In DNS.PT we needed a command with such functionality in order to 
> retrieve all the domains owned/managed by the current logged user and 
> we needed to do an extension.
> 
> My question is:
> 
> Is it reasonable to include such a command in the core protocol?
> 
> We have two nearly candidates for that goal:
> 
> 1 - The EPP <check> command which is used to determine if an object 
> can be provisioned within a repository.
> 
> 2 - The EPP <info> command which is used to retrieve information 
> associated with an existing object.
> 
> The problem is that the commands above are designed to check well 
> identified objects each time. If we are not looking for a specific 
> object we get nothing...
> 
> As Andrew Sullivan and Frederico Neves already did, I'm working on an 
> I-D detailing some of the DNS.PT experiences with implementation. This 
> extension will be there.
> 
> Once I've completed this, I'll be sure to forward it here.
> 
> Waiting for feed-back,
> 
> Eugenio Pinto
> FCCN - DNS.PT
>