RE: Anyone working on 4310-bis?

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Message-ID <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0702ECE0B9@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan; EPP Provreg
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
> 
> On 04/11/09 16:21, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> >> 7. Clarity around the corner case of a client attempting 
> to add and 
> >> remove the same dsData or keyData in a single command.  This must 
> >> result in an error from the server.
> >
> > Why?  In the mainline EPP specification, if you remove and add the 
> > same name servers in a single command, it doesn't cause an 
> error.  (I 
> > know this because misguided registrars used to do it all 
> the time in 
> > an effort to get the "primary" name server "listed first".)  It's a 
> > waste of bandwidth, but since EPP is idempotent it should have no 
> > effect, right?
> >
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I am quite sure that RFC 5731 and its predecessors do not 
> define how to handle this case and that the problem is left 
> as an exercise to the implementor. As I regard this as a flaw 
> in the protocol, I would appreciate a statement in 4310bis 
> regarding such a state.

Section 2 of 5730 very clearly states that "Commands are processed by a
server in the order they are received from a client."  If an <add> is
received before a <rem> it should be processed first.

Scott

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.