draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal

Scott,

I reviewed draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt and I have the following
comments:

1. In the VNDS implementation, RGP does not have a renewal feature, so if
RGP was a Command-Response Extension, it would be better suited for the
domain:update command than the domain:renew command.  
2. Since restore (request & report) functions more as a Protocol Command
than a Command-Response Extension, I believe that it is better suited as a
Protocol Extension.  The namespace and XML schema could support both the
restore Protocol Extension and the Command-Response extension for the
domain:info response.

Based on the proposal of 2, the info response would include the same
extension as defined in draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt:

   S:    <extension>
   S:      <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0"
   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0
   S:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
   S:      </rgp:infData>
   S:    </extension>
 
The restore extension would be moved up to a protocol extension with some
slight modifications:

   C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
   C:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   C:     xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
   C:     epp-1.0.xsd">
   C:  <extension>
   C:     <rgp:restore xmlns:rgp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0"
   C:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0
   C:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   C:        <rgp:request/>  OR <rgp:report>...</rgp:report>
   C:      </rgp:renew>
   C:    <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   C:  </extension>
   C:</epp>

The response would include no <resData> element.

  S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
  S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
  S:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
  S:     xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
  S:     epp-1.0.xsd">
  S:  <response>
  S:    <result code="1000">
  S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
  S:    </result>
  S:    <trID>
  S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
  S:      <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
  S:    </trID>
  S:  </response>
  S:</epp> 

By making the rgp:request and rgp:report protocol extensions, there would be
no coupling of either domain:update or domain:renew behavior.

If anyone else is working on rgp, please respond with your thoughts and
comments.

Thanks,


JG

James F. Gould
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
[email protected]