Re: EPP Document Updates

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>I agree that the transform restriction seems to be kludgy in and of
>itself.  The protocol already includes features to prevent transforms,
>if desired by the registry, by adding status values as Andrew suggests
>above.
>
>In short, I believe that the right thing is to remove the "pendingDelete
>prevents transforms" restriction from 3731.
>
>
>  
>
Will removing transform restrictions on pendingDelete remove all 
conflicts between 3731 and 3915?

Lets consider a scenario when a deletion policy prohibits any updates of 
domain objects between enetering pendingDelete state and rgp restore 
request. If serverUpdateProhibited status is used then rgp restore 
request should not be accepted because it is an extension of <update> 
command. From the other hand I don not see any mechanism within EPP 
protocol to protect the domain object from client updates and at the 
same time allowing <update> requests with rgp restore extension.

The "conflict" I described is not as severe as the original one but it 
can be treated as an inconsistency between 3731 and 3915 documents. The 
inconsistency could be removed if rgp restore was defined as a new EPP 
command versus an extension to <update> command.

regards,

Janusz Sienkiewicz