Re: Lists and EPP
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:20:58PM +0200, Klaus Malorny wrote: > But generally, where to draw the line regarding the functionality? > Why is the retrieval of the contents of the the registrar's > repository at the registry not part of the provisioning? With the > same argument you could argue that the domain:info command is > superfluous in most of the cases -- most of the data you should have > in your own database. But likely nobody would consider to remove > this command from the protocol. Right. My real objection is that the protocol is designed to be "retail" rather than "wholesale". That is, most of the protocol (actually, I can't think of an exception) is intended to deal with one object at a time. A report of the proposed kind would return not one object, but instead a set of other objects. This is also why I think it would be fine to define a report object to be provisioned: you make the provisioning request, and get back your answer (I would imagine it would be a URI with the location the report will be, and the validity period -- perhaps "available by" and "expires on", both timestamps). This maintains the model of working on one object at a time. I suppose the return would also include a report identifier, so that you could use the poll queue to find out when your report was ready, if you wanted. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg