To:
"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@shinkuro.com>, "EPP Provreg" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:37:38 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
In-Reply-To:
<20091030143945.GE76006@shinkuro.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
thread-index:
AcpZcjF4KtG4eCV6TR+bl1D53mwSpAAAyVQg
Thread-Topic:
[ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se > [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 10:40 AM > To: EPP Provreg > Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis? [snip] > Are we sure that the <add> and <rem> elements have to be > processed in the order in which they appear? I am not > completely sure. I recall at least one operator who had an > issue related to this processing-order question. If they do > _not_ have to be so processed, then in fact they can't be > allowed in a single request because the effect could be > different from what is intended. (Note that this remark also > means that there is by no means a consensus on this matter > yet.) > > RFC5731 says, "Commands are processed by a server in the > order they are received from a client." But in this case > these aren't actually different commands, and I have so far > been unable to convince myself that a server operator has to > process the elements of one command in the order in which > those elements appear. If someone knows otherwise (and I > would be very much pleased to have such proof), I'd like to > hear it. But as things stand, my reading is that a server > operator could handle all the <add> elements first, and all > the <rem> elements second, and the effect of that could be > quite different than what we're trying to achieve. The answer to this question is implicit in the understanding of how XML Schema works. As currently specified, the <add> and <rem> elements are part of a <choice>. Only one can appear, so there's no ordering issue. If the <choice> is changed to a <sequence>, the order will be specified in the schema. If you don't want the order to matter, use <all>. I would like to suggest that a sequence makes more sense if you want to avoid issues related to processing order. Scott -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se