RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P

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

> When I wrote the draft at the beginning, I was actually 
> thinking exactly
> your way since the pending action is performed on a specific 
> object mapping.
> But after I finished the writing, I realized that I have to 
> add <paData> to
> every object mapping (i.e., domain, contact, and host) that 
> may need this
> feature. The advantage for doing so, as you explained, is 
> that more object
> specific information can be added in. The downside is that 
> <paData> will
> have to be defined in every object mapping (existing and 
> to-be-defined).
> Since my main goal is to minimize the changes to existing 
> schemas, after
> some struggle myself, I took the approach to extract the 
> basic elements for
> notification that are object independent. But this may be 
> just my personal
> preference in schema design. Both your suggestion and mine 
> should work. I
> will leave it to the WG to decide which way to go.

Given that I firmly believe that we should be consistent in our approach
(and I don't want to try to explain to Patrik why we weren't consistent), I
would strongly urge anyone who objects to my suggested compromise to speak
up sooner rather than later.  I'm trying to get the document edits finished
in short order.

> Just to be complete, taking your input, <paNotify> can be defined as
> follows:
> 
> <complexType name="paNotify">
>   <sequence>
>     <element name="paTRID" type="epp:trIDType"/>
>     <element name="paDate" type="dateTime"/>
>   </sequence>
>   <attribute name="paResult" type="boolean" use="required"/>
> </complexType>

Yup, that's pretty much it.

-Scott-