Re: Is there a 4310-bis document?

Andrew,

I can take the task of creating a draft update based on a compromise
discussed on this list that meets the following points.  Can you forward me
the draft XML that you created?

1. Maintains XML schema backward compatibility
2. Support the ability to add and remove in the same command
3. Support the ability to specify either keyTag or all of the dsData
attributes for a remove.
4. Add clarity around the chg functioning as a replace.
5. Add support for a keyData or a dsData interface for Registries that
intend to manage the DS data generation.  I intend to have the XML schema
support both, but to specify that the server MUST support only one or the
other.  
6. Add a SHOULD statement around the server returning an error for wildcard
deletes to address one of the main concerns around unexpected side effects
of the rem matching multiple DS records with the same keyTag.

I believe the best route is to keep the interface as close as possible to
RFC 4310, but with updates to address the main interface issues.  There are
systems in Production and will be in Production shortly that should have a
smooth migration path to the updated draft.

Any suggestions that the list has with any of these items, please let me
know.  Once I have the draft created I¹ll send it out the list for review.

Thanks,

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
[email protected]
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.



From: Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:48:33 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Is there a 4310-bis document?

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:18:15AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I'm curious...is anyone preparing a document?

I have a -00 draft (I mailed it at least once to the list), but it
didn't meet several people's needs.  My conclusion was that the draft
needed almost a complete rewrite, and this is no longer just an update
but a complete new specification.  I haven't had a chance to go back
to it.  If someone is dying to take over, I have XML that can be used.
I'm happy to have my name dropped from the list in that case.

> (consider it).  Considering others are in production, is it a given that
> there will be backwards compatibility?

There will not be schema compatibility if we go the way currently
proposed.  If we go that way, it might be that old clients will work
fine with new servers.  James seemed to suggest at one point that
during a transition period, the way to get there would just be for
servers or clients or both to ignore parts of the new protocol.  This
answer makes my teeth hurt, but maybe we can get something cleaner.

A

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