Re: clTRID element clarification

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Aaron Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:42 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] clTRID element clarification
> 
> The consensus from the responses that I received are that an EPP server
> should not be doing anything with the clTRID, (except returning it to
> the client in responses, as RFC5730 section 2.6 states).  Does anybody
> feel that section 2.5 of RFC5730 ("command format") should include some
> extra text to explicitly prohibit servers from making assumptions about
> the clTRID element (or something similar)?

Given that RFC 5730 is part of Standard 69 there's not much chance of a near-term amendment, but our process allows us to collect errata. I'm not convinced that there's anything here to correct, though. Section 2.5 currently says this:

"MAY be used to uniquely identify the command *to the client*"

(emphasis mine), and


"Clients are responsible for maintaining their own transaction identifier space to ensure uniqueness."

This doesn't seem ambiguous to me.

Scott
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg