RE: EPP to Draft: Next Steps
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07E20EFE@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP to Draft: Next Steps > > Hello, > > Sorry not to have responded earlier. > > Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> 2005-09-13 19:02 > > 1. I need to make a minor edit to the contact (3733bis) and host > > (3732bis) documents to fix one last <poll> use description. > I described > > that fix here [1]. I also need to add a sentence to > 3730bis (EPP core) > > to note that it obsoletes 3730. The references in 3731bis > (domain) will > > need to be updated if 3732bis and 3733bis change. These > are the last > > needed document changes I'm aware of. > > I think it would be good if these new versions got a 1.1 value in the > <version> tag during server greeting as opposed to 1.0 for the > current RFCs. > > There are minor incompatibilites between the two (among which how to > fill <domain:update> in case of an extension), so it seems worthwile > to me to be able to clearly separates between the two, as some > servers will implement one version, and some will implement the > other. Given that the schemas have not changed, and the version numbers identify the namespaces and schemas, I don't see the need to increment the version numbers. Anything that was working a certain way before should continue to work the same way with the proposed text changes. -Scott-