To:
Michael Young <myoung@ca.afilias.info>
Cc:
"'James Gould'" <jgould@verisign.com>, "'Eugenio Pinto'" <eugenio.pinto@fccn.pt>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Francisco Obispo <fobispo@nic.ve>
Date:
Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:37:52 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<000901c68967$395bc470$107f10ac@DUN477>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?
Dear Eugenio, For our registration system, whatever was not accesible via de EPP protocol, was implemented using WebServices (SOAP). But, it would probably be helpful to have a list of objects given a search pattern :-/ regards -francisco Michael Young wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > > > >