To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:19:06 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07015E44D2@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Implementation Test Matrix
Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > This is precisely why I shared the matrix. If your results differ, I > need to know what others have seen for test results. If there are > differences of opinion we can talk about them to determine what really > needs to be in the boxes. > Hi Scott, It is not a question of "differences". It is a question of interpretation of the term "implemented and tested". What about the "<hello>" message, for example? Six "X". Really? Does any of the three registries work with a different transport layer than RFC 3734? Not that I am aware of. So how could you have tested the <hello> command if RFC3734 does not even mention it? Comparing RFC3730 and RFC3734 shows that it is at least unclear (if not contradicting) whether or not the client may send a "<hello>" message at the beginning of the communication (and cannot be tested therefore). My personal interpretation of your RFC3734 is, however, that the "<hello>" element is not allowed in TCP-based communications. Since the "<hello>" message is not a command, it is also unclear in RFC3730 how a server should react if it receives a "<hello>" message at any point in time after the server has sent the "<greeting>" message. Also not testable. >> Howsoever, I would be surprised if you would do anything but >> to ignore my >> objections -- as usual. > > Ignore your "objections"? Hardly. There are multitudes of responses > from me in the list archives (such as this one) to confirm that you're > not being ignored when you participate in a productive dialogue. > However, don't expect me to respond to your opinions [1] that repeat old > arguments. I'm not going there. > A single word comes to my mind: Idempotency. You are probably still convinced of this great property of EPP (in the way you have defined it). - SCNR > -Scott- > Regards, Klaus ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9 Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0