RE: EPP Document Updates

At 17:08 -0400 7/19/05, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>
>I think that's perfectly appropriate.  If implementation experience has
>demonstrated that it was a mistake, we can change it.  The question,
>though, is what to replace it with?  No restrictions?  Some
>restrictions?  Trying to define a set might be a problem.  Not defining
>any in the protocol might be better, since that gives registries the
>flexibility to do whatever is appropriate in their own operating
>environments.
>

That's what I was thinking.  Is the prohibition (or any prohibition) 
are "business rule" that can be forced up the stack?  Is there a 
reason the protocol needs to define this - is it an interoperability 
issue?

Can a registrar deal with one registry that prohibits one action 
during a pendingDelete and still deal with another registry that 
permits the same action?   I think that's one question which will say 
whether we need to retain the prohibition.

Another aspect is the impact on the document, the code complying to 
it, and whether the schema is changed.

I don't have answers myself right now, but these are the things that 
need looking into.  In my opinion.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.