Re: EPP Implementation Test Matrix

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
> Not a contradiction, an error.  The state machine diagram should be
> fixed.  It will be in the next iteration of the document.  Thanks for
> pointing out the error.
> 

See, I do this despite my opinion regarding EPP ;-)

>> Also, in 3734, the server sends an unsolicited <greeting>. 
>> Should the server 
>> send a second <greeting> in case the client sends a <hello>? 
>> According to 
>> 3730/2.3, it has to.
> 
> Correct about 3730, though the <greeting> isn't unsolicited.  It's sent
> in response to a client action.
> 

Maybe "unsolicited" is the wrong term, but not as a response to a <hello> 
message, but to the connect. So a <hello> message is not consumed by this.

> 
> There's another party to consider: the server operator.  It's important
> for them -- and I can guarantee that registrars WILL care if there are
> financial consequences for transactions repeatedly sent in error.
> 

Ah, come on. The registry is not responsible for the errors that are done by the 
registrar. If a registrar accidentally deletes a domain and has to restore it 
for big money, you are happy about this, aren't you?

> -Scott-
> 

Regards,

Klaus


___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      [email protected]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0