To:
EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Date:
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:07:09 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<C7481B0E.36433%jgould@verisign.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>,EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] draft-gould-rfc4310bis-00.txt Submitted forReview
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:51:42PM -0500, James Gould wrote: > corner case that is not covered in the current schema is replacing all DS or > Key Data with nothing, meaning remove all. I prefer that the client > explicitly specify what should be added or removed via the secDNS:add and > secDNS:rem, but the secDNS:chg could be updated to allow an empty > secDNS:chg. That sounds to me like a foot-gun loaded for bear. I think what will happen is that someone will have some nasty bug that fails to get the new data into place (think "empty webform gets submitted by fat-fingered iphone user" or even worse, "webform bug doesn't get POST data properly from client") and submits a syntactically-legal empty "new state" dataset. Poof! Instant DS deletion. Now, normally I'd argue that the above is policy, not protocol, except that I dislike very much the habit of overloading "no data" to also mean "replace data with NULL" (we recovering database geeks just see this sort of thing everywhere). So I'd say if you want to remove something, you have to remove it, not change it to "empty". 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