Launchphase and <check>

We're currently implementing the launchphase extentension.

In my opinion the Claims Check system should use the <extension> section and not the <resData>

The reason for my reasoning has to do with RFC5730 and:

2.9.2.1.  EPP <check> Command


   The EPP <check> command is used to determine if an object can be
   provisioned within a repository.  It provides a hint that allows a
   client to anticipate the success or failure of provisioning an object
   using the <create> command as object-provisioning requirements are
   ultimately a matter of server policy.


Referring to "Objects", however launch-1.0 is an extension, or at least is handled in EPP like one, so my belief is that the response should go into the <extension> section:

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:     <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <resData>
   S:     <launch:chkData
   S:      xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
   S:      <launch:phase>claims</launch:phase>
   S:      <launch:cd>
   S:        <launch:name exists="0">example1.tld</launch:name>
   S:      </launch:cd>
   S:      <launch:cd>
   S:        <launch:name exists="1">example2.tld</launch:name>
   S:        <launch:claimKey>abc123</launch:claimKey>
   S:      </launch:cd>
   S:     </launch:chkData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <trID>
   S:     <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:     <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

SHOULD BE:

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:     <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <extension>
   S:     <launch:chkData
   S:      xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
   S:      <launch:phase>claims</launch:phase>
   S:      <launch:cd>
   S:        <launch:name exists="0">example1.tld</launch:name>
   S:      </launch:cd>
   S:      <launch:cd>
   S:        <launch:name exists="1">example2.tld</launch:name>
   S:        <launch:claimKey>abc123</launch:claimKey>
   S:      </launch:cd>
   S:     </launch:chkData>
   S:    </extension>
   S:    <trID>
   S:     <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:     <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>



The main reasoning behind this, is that some systems (including ours) expect extensions to write on the <extension> section and NOT in the rest of the document.

Having extensions that behave like "objects" could lead to unnecessary processing and confusion.

Does anyone feel the same?


Francisco Obispo 
Director of Applications and Services - ISC
email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE

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