Re: RFC 5733: street changes with contact:update

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:46:54 +0000
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Message-ID <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492D5C6D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 4:01 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Seth Goldman
> Cc: IETF Provreg Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [provreg] RFC 5733: street changes with contact:update
> 
> On 14.11.2013 19:48, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > I don’t know how one can make a case that sub-element replacement is
> acceptable.
> > Section 3.2.5 of RFC 5733 says this (emphasis mine):
> >
> > “The EPP <update> command provides a transform operation that allows
> a client to
> > modify the attributes of a contact _/object/_.”
> >
> > and this:
> >
> > “An OPTIONAL <contact:chg> element that contains _/object attribute
> values to be
> > changed/_.”
> >
> > The <update> is thus focused on _/changing/_ the attributes of the
> _/object/_.
> > In the example Klaus provided, the command received is “replace the
> existing
> > <contact:postalInfo> attribute with a new instance of
> <contact:postalInfo>”. The
> > server failed to replace the two <street> elements with the single
> element
> > provided in the <update>. It shouldn’t work that way.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> 
> Hi Scot, Seth,
> 
> up to now I regarded the name, the organization and the the whole
> address block
> as the replacable units, derived from the associated XML schema. It
> namely
> contains two datatypes, "postalInfoType" for the create command and
> "chgPostalInfoType" for the update command. The first contains the
> <name> and
> <addr> elements as mandatory elements, the latter contains them as
> optional
> elements. If one would consider the postalInfo itself as the replacable
> unit, it
> would not make sense to enforce the name and address on <create>, but
> would
> allow to remove them with a following <update> request.
> 
> So simply asked: What does the following schema-wise legal request do?
> 
> <contact:update xmlns:contact="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0">
>    <contact:id>C20131114-01</contact:id>
>    <contact:chg>
>      <contact:postalInfo type="int"/>
>    </contact:chg>
> </contact:update>
> 
> Does it clear the international contact? Does it leave the
> international postal
> data simply unchanged (aside from being illegal in Scot's view to
> submit a
> command that is effectively non-modifying). Does the following command

Go back to what I was trying to say yesterday: <chg> means "replace existing with new". So yes, it would change the international postal info to "empty".

> <contact:update xmlns:contact="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0">
>    <contact:id>C20131114-01</contact:id>
>    <contact:chg>
>      <contact:postalInfo type="int">
>        <contact:org>ACME Solutions</contact:org>
>      </contact:postalInfo>
>    </contact:chg>
> </contact:update>
> 
> modify the postal info so that it *solely* contains the organization
> and nothing
> else afterwards?

Assuming all other schema requirements are met, yes.

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