To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:21:05 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<32ec3a6d0701290847k4f4de682ufbcb40c0055237e5@mail.gmail.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] RFC 3730 (EPP)
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Owen Borseth wrote: > In particular, what should be the proper response code to a domain > update command where the domain itself exists but the item being > updated for the domain does not exist? The general answer to this, I think, is that it is dependent on the case in question. For the most part, I'd expect error codes in the 23xx series. That said. . . > domain. For instance, what would be the proper response code if we > attempted to remove the "CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED" status from an > existing domain that did not already have that status? Hopefully this > explanation makes sense. . . .it seems to me that this case is either a 2304 (because local policy could decide you can't remove a status that isn't there) or e;se a 2002 (because the status has to be set before it can be removed). I'm not sure the current RFCs (or their proposed replacements) gives one a reason to prefer one of these answers to the other. -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8 jabber: ajsaf@jabber.org +1 416 646 3304 x4110