To:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>
Date:
Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:29:29 +0200
In-reply-to:
Your message of Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:10:19 -0400. <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E3EC66E@stntexch1.va.neustar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: <authInfo> in Transfer Query for Domain and Contact
For some reason, I did not see this email appear in the archive. So here is
the resend.
Hong,
The reason was:
Subject: BOUNCE ietf-provreg@cafax.se: Admin request of type /\bcancel\b/i at line 7
Which translates to:
In the first n-lines (I'm not sure about the value of n) the majordomo
server noticed ``cancel'' and thought it was a cancel request. Me,
being away, hadn't the opportunity to approve the message.
Sorry about all this. It does raises another question: Anybody else
out there willing to share the administrational burden maintaining
the provreg list?
jaap
To quote the part that triggered the bounce:
I have a question about <authInfo> being mandatory for the <transfer>
command. I understand that it was added into EPP-06 [1] based on the
"spying" issue raised by Dan Manley [2]. I also feel that this parameter
should be mandatory for the other four operations related to <transfer>,
i.e., request, cancel, reject and approve.