Re: EPP Document Updates

Edward Lewis <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Message-ID <a06200702bf02f7762f1f@[10.31.32.204]>
At 10:35 -0400 7/11/05, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>This can be addressed in a few different ways:
>
>- Modify 3731 to change the pendingDelete rule in a
>non-RGP-extension-specific way.
>- Modify 3915 to note that the extended <domain:update> is an exception
>to the pendingDelete rule.  This was my original intention, but I agree
>that it's not clearly specified that way.  Section 4.2.5 already does
>this for a related update situation.
>- Modify 3915 extensively to perform RGP processing some other way.
>
>There may be other possibilities.  Opinions?

I talked this over with the developers in-house - I'd (we'd) 
recommend altering the pendingDelete rule (first option).

For one, this minimizes the changes to the documented specificiations 
(and hence code).

And, stepping back a bit, why have a "pendingX" if X can't be 
prevented?  (I understand that there may be latency in doing X, but 
as far as a protocol like EPP is concerned, why distinguish the 
pending state?)

>So, this is a request for information.  Have any other conflicts or
>ambiguities been discovered?  Depending on what we find we may be able
>to move the documents to Draft Standard status by making editorial
>changes (such as fixing examples).  Protocol changes (text or XML
>Schema) typically require a re-spin at Proposed Standard before they can
>be advanced to Draft.  Applications AD Ted Hardie can provide more
>guidance once we know what needs to be changed.  We might even need to
>create a new working group if significant issues are identified.

Do you think that this change needs a re-spin at PS?  (Not that it 
matters much, the "6-month delay" required as *one* of the steps to 
DS was spent in the RFC editor queue last time we made it to PS. ;) ) 
Maybe with a change like this we ought to dub it EPP 1.1.

BTW - I've seen references to EPP "v6".  I'm assuming that that is 
the -06 drafts, not a successor to the RFC version nor EPP for IPv6.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.