To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:19:06 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07015E44D2@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Implementation Test Matrix
Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> This is precisely why I shared the matrix. If your results differ, I
> need to know what others have seen for test results. If there are
> differences of opinion we can talk about them to determine what really
> needs to be in the boxes.
>
Hi Scott,
It is not a question of "differences". It is a question of interpretation of the
term "implemented and tested". What about the "<hello>" message, for example?
Six "X". Really? Does any of the three registries work with a different
transport layer than RFC 3734? Not that I am aware of. So how could you have
tested the <hello> command if RFC3734 does not even mention it? Comparing
RFC3730 and RFC3734 shows that it is at least unclear (if not contradicting)
whether or not the client may send a "<hello>" message at the beginning of the
communication (and cannot be tested therefore). My personal interpretation of
your RFC3734 is, however, that the "<hello>" element is not allowed in TCP-based
communications. Since the "<hello>" message is not a command, it is also unclear
in RFC3730 how a server should react if it receives a "<hello>" message at any
point in time after the server has sent the "<greeting>" message. Also not testable.
>> Howsoever, I would be surprised if you would do anything but
>> to ignore my
>> objections -- as usual.
>
> Ignore your "objections"? Hardly. There are multitudes of responses
> from me in the list archives (such as this one) to confirm that you're
> not being ignored when you participate in a productive dialogue.
> However, don't expect me to respond to your opinions [1] that repeat old
> arguments. I'm not going there.
>
A single word comes to my mind: Idempotency. You are probably still convinced of
this great property of EPP (in the way you have defined it).
- SCNR
> -Scott-
>
Regards,
Klaus
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund
Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0