[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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


Home | Date list | Subject list