RE: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan; EPP Provreg
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
> 
> On 04/11/09 16:21, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> >
> > Why?  In the mainline EPP specification, if you remove and add the 
> > same name servers in a single command, it doesn't cause an 
> error.  (I 
> > know this because misguided registrars used to do it all 
> the time in 
> > an effort to get the "primary" name server "listed first".)  It's a 
> > waste of bandwidth, but since EPP is idempotent it should have no 
> > effect, right?
> >
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I am quite sure that RFC 5731 and its predecessors do not 
> define how to handle this case and that the problem is left 
> as an exercise to the implementor. As I regard this as a flaw 
> in the protocol, I would appreciate a statement in 4310bis 
> regarding such a state.

Section 2 of 5730 very clearly states that "Commands are processed by a
server in the order they are received from a client."  If an <add> is
received before a <rem> it should be processed first.

Scott

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