[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: James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:43:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20091104135253.GB9518@shinkuro.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index: AcpdWTjSZEnWcJBiSGeNdJmOt6nwHQAA+/lD
Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?

All,

Before we continue to go around in circles, can I propose an option that
addresses most of everyoneıs concerns, where the following would be met?

1. XML schema is backward compatible
2. Support for add and rem in the same command
3. Support for passing all four dsData attributes on a rem
4. Support for a dsData and keyData primary interface.  Only one primary
interface should be supported by the server.
5. Remove support for the wildcard delete of dsData in the rem by just using
the keyTag with a clear statement (i.e. Server must return error if the
keyTag matches multiple DS records) in the specification.  From my
perspective and I believe a couple others this is a key issue that must be
addressed.    
6. Clarity in the specification on the use of the chg as a replace or a
³change all².   
7. Clarity around the corner case of a client attempting to add and remove
the same dsData or keyData in a single command.  This must result in an
error from the server.  Additionally an error must be returned if the client
tries to remove dsData or keyData that does not exist or tries to add dsData
or keyData that already exists.

Option 2 from my prior e-mail should satisfy all of these along with some
additional text clarity in the specification.

Option 2 - Combination of Klausıs and Ulrichıs proposals, where the dsData
information is made optional to support the keyData interface:

      <complexType name="dsDataType">
        <sequence>
            <group minOccurs="0">
                <element name="keyTag"     type="unsignedShort"/>
                <element name="alg"        type="unsignedByte"/>
                <element name="digestType" type="unsignedByte"/>
                <element name="digest"     type="hexBinary"/>
                <element name="maxSigLife" type="secDNS:maxSigLifeType"
minOccurs="0"/>
            </group>
            <element name="keyData" type="secDNS:keyDataType"
minOccurs="0"/>
        </sequence>
      </complexType>


    <complexType name="updateType">

        <choice>
  
            <element name="chg" type="secDNS:dsType"/>

                <sequence>

                    <element name="add" type="secDNS:dsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
   
                    <element name="rem" type="secDNS:remType"
minOccurs="0"/>
   
                </sequence>

           </choice>

            <attribute name="urgent" type="boolean" default="false"/>

    </complexType>

    <complexType name="remType">

        <choice maxOccurs="unbounded">

            <element name="keyTag" type="unsignedShort"/>

            <element name="dsData" type="secDNS:dsDataType"/>

        </choice>
 
    </complexType>
    


-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.



From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:52:53 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:30:39PM +0100, Ulrich Wisser wrote:
>
> In that light I propose we drop backward compatibility.

This sounds like what we are proposing is a completely new extension.
Is that right?

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se


Home | Date list | Subject list