To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Ulrich Wisser <liste@publisher.de>
Date:
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:08:44 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<20091030155744.GH76006@shinkuro.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
Why would the RFC have to define an order of execution? Can't that be left to registry policy decision? As long as the order is consistent of course. At .SE we impose limits on several data elements (contacts per domain, ip numbers per host). Therefor we execute rem first. I vote for the dsDataType. It makes rem fully compatible to add. And lessens the burden for implementors on both server and client sides. If we drop backward compatibility we should drop chg as it doesn't match the overall EPP interpretation of chg. /Ulrich -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se