To:
James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
CC:
EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:40:35 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<C75524E6.366C5%jgould@verisign.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091222 Shredder/3.0.1pre
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] draft-gould-rfc4310bis-01.txt Submitted for Review
On 21/12/09 19:13, James Gould wrote: > Klaus, > > [...] >> While a standard should be concise, it should avoid implicit > assumptions in my >> humble opinion. Maybe I am wrong, but I can't remember that RFC 5730 > or RFC >> 3735 >> say anything about the semantics of not including a certain extension. > Also, >> giving the existence of an extension element any meaning limits the > forward >> compatibility of the extension itself. For example, if someone thinks to >> extend >> RFC 3915 to report something in addition to the <rgp:rgpStatus>, then the >> semantics of the infData element would have to be changed regarding the >> existence. > > I’m really not sure if there is any defined extension points for an > extension. I can add some global statement to the draft around the > meaning of the inclusion or exclusion of the extension, where the > remainder of the draft assumes that the extension is only included for > commands or responses when there is data relevant to the extension to > pass along with one or two examples. Does this meet your request? > Yes, this would be IMHO sufficient. >> I cannot agree. RFC 2119 says regarding "MUST": >> >> 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the >> definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. >> >> Although I am not a native English speaker, this seems to be pretty > clear to >> me >> that there may not exist any hidden assumptions. There is no > comparative to >> "absolute". And it is no excuse for me that other EPP related RFCs do the >> same. >> Their wording has been the source for confusion more than once ;-) >> > > I personally have not been confused, but does a global statement in the > draft meet this request as well? I can’t change other RFC’s, so I will > look to add some clarity in a global statement. Yes, I think so. >[...] > > > JG Regards, Klaus -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se