Re: DNSSEC EPP Extension (RFC 4310) Usability Question

On 12/11/2008 03:25 PM, James Gould wrote:
> Klaus,
>
> Your two statements “The respective DNSSEC EPP Extension could handle
> this in the same way,
> i.e. a certain key tag may appear only in one of the three sections
> within one
> request, otherwise the request would fail” and “Although I don't think
> there is a
> need to update RFC 4310, I think such kind of constraints in the EPP specs
> should be a little bit more relaxed to make it more flexible” are sort
> of conflicting.
>
> RFC 4310 would have to be updated to allow for the use of add, rem, and
> chg in a single command. The XML schema defined in the RFC will disallow
> a combination of add, rem, and chg assuming the Registry has XML schema
> validation enabled, which in our case we do. Do you see a need to change
> the XML schema?
>
> --
>

Hi James,

as I am in favour of not increasing the protocol entropy without a real need(*), 
I would not update RFC 4310 just for this reason. This is not a limitation one 
cannot live with. If there would be a major overhaul of this RFC, one could 
consider to change the <choice> to a <sequence> though, as this is backward 
compatible.

Regards,

Klaus

* We still struggle with various pre-EPP-1.0 and other strange EPP (-like) 
implementations.