Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review

> I submitted http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt 
> which includes the feedback that I received so far and will be the 
> basis for the IESG review.  Please let me know if you have any 
> feedback to the latest draft. 

Not being an EPP guru, what's the rationale for requiring a 2102 error if 
the server doesn't support <secDNS:update urgent="1"> or 
<secDNS:maxSigLife> ?

I would have thought that Postel's law should apply, otherwise a registrar 
has to have advance knowledge of which registries support those elements 
and which don't, and alter their submitted XML accordingly.  I can't 
immediately see how any harm would come from simply ignoring those 
elements.

Also, I note that §4 says that a server MUST support either 
<secDNS:dsData> or <secDNS:keyData>, but not both (unless in transition 
from one to the other).  However I can find no guidance on what should 
happen if the client sends the wrong one.  The schema is clear that it's a 
choice, but that only affects individual messages, and doesn't reflect the 
server's capabilities. 

BTW, §10 (Acknowledgements) says that this doc _updates_ 4310 and refers 
readers to that document's acknowledgements section, whereas elsewhere 
it's clear that it obsoletes it.  There's also an informative reference to 
4310.  I don't believe it's permitted to both obsolete a document and 
refer to it at the same time.

kind regards,

Ray

-- 
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
e: [email protected], t: +44 1865 332211