RE: EPP Document Updates

Thanks for the thoughts, Ed.

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

That's what I originally intended with 3915, but it may mean a text
change to 3731 to ensure that the intention is clear.  Not necessarily a
big deal.

> 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?)

If I remember correctly (and it's possible I won't), all of the
"pending" stuff was added as a result of people wanting to allow some
sort of offline review/processing before some "final" state was entered.
I personally think it makes the protocol a little kludgy, but I believe
there was a need to try to match operational realities.

> 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.

We might be able to avoid a spin if we avoid schema changes. Text
changes alone might qualify as "clarifications".  Any change to the
schemas likely puts us in 1.1 territory.

-Scott-