To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:51:06 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07015E4530@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:
>
> Not a contradiction, an error. The state machine diagram should be
> fixed. It will be in the next iteration of the document. Thanks for
> pointing out the error.
>
See, I do this despite my opinion regarding EPP ;-)
>> Also, in 3734, the server sends an unsolicited <greeting>.
>> Should the server
>> send a second <greeting> in case the client sends a <hello>?
>> According to
>> 3730/2.3, it has to.
>
> Correct about 3730, though the <greeting> isn't unsolicited. It's sent
> in response to a client action.
>
Maybe "unsolicited" is the wrong term, but not as a response to a <hello>
message, but to the connect. So a <hello> message is not consumed by this.
>
> There's another party to consider: the server operator. It's important
> for them -- and I can guarantee that registrars WILL care if there are
> financial consequences for transactions repeatedly sent in error.
>
Ah, come on. The registry is not responsible for the errors that are done by the
registrar. If a registrar accidentally deletes a domain and has to restore it
for big money, you are happy about this, aren't you?
> -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