Re: Inconsistent Domain Status Value Guidance in RFC 5731

Scott,

I also read in the RFC in the same section 2.3:

 -  ok

      This is the normal status value for an object that has no pending
      operations or prohibitions.  This value is set and removed by the
      server as other status values are added or removed.

This makes me consider "ok" as a pseudo status:
"ok" is the default when *no other* statuses are attached,
"ok" is *implicitely* associated in the absence of other statuses.

Zero <domain:status> elements represent the *implicit* nature of the
"ok" status,
hence I don't see a conflict between the two quotes below.

Regards,
Geert

Op 11/09/15 om 13:28 schreef Hollenbeck, Scott:
> I received a mail note from someone asking about a difference in the text that appears in RFC 5731 and the schema that is supposed to support that text. First, the text from Section 2.3:
>
> "A domain object MUST always have at least one associated status value".
>
> Text from Section 3.1.2 (info response):
>
> "Zero or more OPTIONAL <domain:status> elements that contain the current status descriptors associated with the domain"
>
> The schema matches the 3.1.2 text. I can't remember why or how we ended up with text that says "MUST always have at least one" in one section and "Zero or more OPTIONAL" in another section. Does this tickle any memories for anyone?
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> provreg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
>

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