RE: Anyone working on 4310-bis?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:07 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: EPP Provreg
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?
> 
> On 05/11/09 13:16, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
> > I'm referring to XML command structures for which an order can be 
> > explicitly specified, such as elements within a sequence.  It's 
> > certainly not a new concept because the specifications have 
> been this 
> > way since the very beginning (the same quote can be found 
> in RFC 3730 
> > from 2004). If the order wasn't intended to be significant 
> I wouldn't 
> > have used sequences.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> 
> Well, XML is not a not a command structure but a hierarchical 
> syntax for documents, with XML Schema being one of multiple 
> choices of overlaying it with rules. Anyway, for my taste 
> tying the logic of a high level protocol that tightly to its 
> transport representation is a design weakness, more 
> abstraction would be a boon. But it is wasted time to argue 
> -- it is nothing new that we have diametric opinions on 
> certain topics...

"XML command structures" should be interpreted as "XML Schema used to
specify EPP commands".  Sorry for not being more specific, but given
what we're talking about I didn't think my meaning was unclear.

In this context, more abstraction makes for just the kind of uncertainty
("what happens if you do a <rem> before an <add> or vice-versa?") that
we're seeing on the list right now.  You're certainly correct in
suggesting that there are situations where more abstraction is
beneficial, but a lack of specificity in this particular situation
(add/rem processing order) can lead to non-deterministic behavior.
*That's* a weakness.

Scott

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email protected]