[ietf-provreg] Pandoras box - or not!? you decide

[Ulrich Wisser <liste@publisher.de>]

Hi,

may proposal maybe not the most popular, but anyway ...

Now that we will change the URN we could make this extension actually 
reflect the behavior of EPP in general. We already have found an 
inconsistency in the extension for maxSigLife. I propose the following 
changes.

1. Drop old style <secDNS:rem/>
There is no need to support a broken specification in the new version. 
Servers looking for backward compatibility can use version 1.0.

2. Redefine the <secDNS:chg/> to match the semantics used in all other 
EPP documents.
The usual definition of add/rem/chg for EPP is that add will add things, 
rem will remove things and chg will update things that can't be added or 
removed. E.g. the registrant for a domain can only be changed, ns 
records can only be added or removed not changed.
That would mean <secDNS:chg/> could no longer be used to add or remove 
ds records. But chg could be used to update maxSigLife.
This would also mean to drop maxSigLife from dsData and keyData 
interface. And of course maxSigLife can't be added or removed.

I know that these are no minor changes. And they most probably go beyond 
the initial scope of the intended update to 4310. But I would like to 
ask you to consider my proposal anyway. We have the chance to fix this 
extension and I would like us to at least try to aim for the same 
quality as the other EPP documents.

/Ulrich




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