RE: EPP Document Updates

Thoughts below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:35 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
> 
> I did not read the whole thread, so it may have been 
> mentioned there. Today, I 
> discovered a small syntactic issue in the examples given in 
> section 2.9. of RFC 
> 3733. The elements that are used to describe the disclosure 
> are missing the 
> final slash, as they are empty.
> 
> - - - 8< - - -
>     <contact:name type="int">
>     <contact:name type="loc">
>     <contact:org type="int">
>     <contact:org type="loc">
>     <contact:addr type="int">
>     <contact:addr type="loc">
>     <contact:voice>
>     <contact:fax>
>     <contact:email>
> 
>     Example <contact:disclose> element, flag="0":
> 
>     <contact:disclose flag="0">
>       <contact:email>
>       <contact:voice>
>     </contact:disclose>
> 
> 
>     Example <contact:disclose> element, flag="1":
> 
>     <contact:disclose flag="1">
>       <contact:name type="int">
>       <contact:org type="int">
>       <contact:addr type="int">
>     </contact:disclose>
> - - - 8< - - -
> 
> should read
> 
> - - - 8< - - -
>     <contact:name type="int"/>
>     <contact:name type="loc"/>
>     <contact:org type="int"/>
>     <contact:org type="loc"/>
>     <contact:addr type="int"/>
>     <contact:addr type="loc"/>
>     <contact:voice/>
>     <contact:fax/>
>     <contact:email/>
> 
>     Example <contact:disclose> element, flag="0":
> 
>     <contact:disclose flag="0">
>       <contact:email/>
>       <contact:voice/>
>     </contact:disclose>
> 
> 
>     Example <contact:disclose> element, flag="1":
> 
>     <contact:disclose flag="1">
>       <contact:name type="int"/>
>       <contact:org type="int"/>
>       <contact:addr type="int"/>
>     </contact:disclose>
> - - - 8< - - -

You're exactly correct.  Thanks for catching those errors.

> One thing that really puzzles me in this context is that a 
> registrar cannot 
> allow the disclosure of one component (that is normally not 
> disclosed) and to 
> disallow the disclosure of another component (that his 
> normally disclosed) at 
> the same time. But maybe I am just misunderstanding the 
> wording. I think I have 
> to reread this at a later point in time.

Remember that the whole "disclose" thing got crammed into the spec at
the last minute at the demand of the IESG.  There were parts that didn't
make sense then (to me anyway) and I'm sure they still don't make sense
now.  This is another one of those things that we should really consider
removing (if no one is using it) or revising (if it's not quite right).

-Scott-