RE: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs

Patrik,

I'm open to clarifying protocol text and I'll work with Chris to make sure that any proposed changes stay in scope.  Sending specific text changes/additions would be appreciated.

I'm not planning to touch 4310.  I've heard enough about that spec from different people with operational experience to make me think that it needs a respin at Proposed with either protocol updates or a complete re-write.  I don't have time to take on that work, so I've offered to give up the editing pen to others that have asked about it privately.  Consider this a public offer.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:49 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement 
> Request for EPP RFCs
> 
> Hmm....in this time period you talk about, I have implemented 
> epp from the beginning -- twice -- and got quite some 
> experience. There are a few things that would be good to 
> clarify, although they to some degree have to do with the 
> database management and structure and not so much the actual protocol.
> 
> Then small things that could have been better I think, but I 
> guess everyone have implemented this already, so to make the 
> changes might be wrong at this point (and not necessary).
> 
> On the first, I see differences on how transfers of domains 
> and "attached objects" work. Some registries require explicit 
> transfer of contacts, which imply one (as I think) might as 
> registrar have access to the domain object, but not contact. 
> Other registries do clone the contact object when a domain is 
> transferred, and the clone get a new contact-id (which imply 
> the number of contact objects in the database increase, and 
> the contact-id of holder change in the domain when the 
> transfer happens.
> 
> Maybe some clarification about "contact id" is needed?
> 
> On the second, I look specifically at the DNSSEC extension, 
> RFC4310, where the update command is inconsistent. This is 
> something that programmers more than myself has missed, and 
> that required some extra hours of debugging.
> 
> a)
> 
> > The <secDNS:add> element is used to add DS information to 
> an existing 
> > set. The <secDNS:add> element MUST contain one or more
> > <secDNS: dsData> elements as described in Section 3.1.2.
> 
> b)
> 
> > The <secDNS:rem> element contains one or more <secDNS:keyTag>  
> > elements that are used to remove DS data from a delegation. The  
> > <secDNS:keyTag> element MUST contain a key tag value as 
> described in  
> > section 5.1.1 of RFC 4034 [6]. Removing all DS information can  
> > remove the ability of the parent to secure the delegation to the  
> > child zone.
> 
> Note that the format inside the <secDNS:add> and <secDNS:rem> is  
> different. The rem element "directly" include the keytag 
> element while  
> the add element include dsData (that in turn include the keytag).
> 
> Why is there not a dsData wrapper around the keytag element for the  
> rem command?
> 
> c)
> 
> .SE have added a feature in the update command, and that is that the  
> keyID in a rem update can use the specific key tag "0" that 
> imply all  
> keys are to be removed.
> 
> Are these things that could be interesting to discuss, and if so,  
> should I send text somewhere?
> 
>     Patrik
> 
> On 2 apr 2009, at 13.18, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
> > (trimming the recipients a bit)
> >
> > It's been 3 months since I last heard from anyone who had 
> any concerns
> > with moving forward, so I'm going to get moving.  I have 
> copies of the
> > XML source files for the current RFCs to use as a basis for new I- 
> > Ds.  I
> > intend to update references in RFCs 4930-4934 as needed.  I will add
> > text to 4934 to better describe the TLS usage profile as noted by  
> > Chris.
> >
> > -Scott-
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:08 AM
> >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email protected]
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
> >>
> >> Two questions I missed:
> >>
> >> --On October 17, 2008 8:28:31 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> 4291: is its status a show-stopper for advancement?  I'd
> >> like to have
> >>> that question answered before I invest a lot of time in making any
> >>> document updates to address the TLS topics you noted.
> >>
> >> This is a case for RFC 3967, IMHO.  While I can't predict how
> >> the rest of the IETF will behave on this point, the only
> >> alternative would be to rip
> >> IPv6 support out of the base spec into a separate extension
> >> that doesn't advance on the standards track.  I would find it
> >> quite surprising if the IETF/IESG choose that alternative to RFC  
> >> 3967.
> >>
> >>> Can you point me to another specification that includes a 
> TLS usage
> >>> profile that addresses the features you described?  I'd
> >> like to see an
> >>> example that has recently passed muster with the IESG.
> >>
> >> The most recent is:
> >>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls>
> >>
> >> 		- Chris
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>