Re: Changes we'd make to EPP
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 03:51:00PM -0600, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote: > registry to have a policy that allows them to declare them abandoned > and clean them up. > > On the other hand, the registry really shouldn't be changing registrar > created/owned objects without synchronizing their activities somehow, > someway, as aptly put by others on the list. > > This problem statement been repeated again and again for years. > Clearly, there is a desire for a solution, although James you I don't understand why this issue is generating such heat on the list. What's the issue? Repositories could have any policy they want on this. You can already do any of what you want with the existing protocol, because the protocol has an "out" for bulk operations where you don't want to fill up the poll queue: Message queues can consume server resources if clients do not retrieve and acknowledge messages on a regular basis. Servers MAY implement other mechanisms to dequeue and deliver messages if queue maintenance needs exceed server resource consumption limits. Server operators SHOULD consider time-sensitivity and resource management factors when selecting a delivery method for service information because some message types can be reasonably delivered using non- protocol methods that require fewer server resources. > I still think the expiration idea on contacts is graceful and would > support that approach. You'd need an extension or a new contact mapping, though. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg