RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Implementation Test Matrix

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:19 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> 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.

Sorry, but I disagree.  Apparently other implementers do as well.
There's absolutely nothing in 3730 that says a <hello> can't be used
with a connection-oriented transport.  In fact, section 2.3 very clearly
says that "An EPP client MAY request a <greeting> from an EPP server at
any time by sending a <hello> to a server".  I don't know what's unclear
about that.

While I disagree with the specific example you described above I agree
that we need to discuss feature interpretation and testability.  That's
the whole point of producing an implementation report.

> >> 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).

Another old argument.  The definition I've consistently used [1] is
described in Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter's "Transaction Processing:
Concepts and Techniques" book.  If you disagree with it, take it up with
them.

-Scott-

[1]
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00061.html