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]