[Crisp] Clarification for error situations needed

Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de> Fri, 26 May 2006 12:06 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fjb5U-0007Ll-6v; Fri, 26 May 2006 08:06:40 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fjb5S-0007Lg-Om for crisp@ietf.org; Fri, 26 May 2006 08:06:38 -0400
Received: from smtp.denic.de ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fjb5R-0007n8-FP for crisp@ietf.org; Fri, 26 May 2006 08:06:38 -0400
Received: from notes.rz.denic.de ([]) by smtp.denic.de with esmtp id 1Fjb5C-0006jb-Eu; Fri, 26 May 2006 14:06:22 +0200
To: crisp@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
From: Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de>
Message-ID: <OF76FB0B98.DD6308F6-ONC125717A.003EF751-C125717A.00427D40@notes.denic.de>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:06:15 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes/Denic at 26.05.2006 14:06:22, Serialize complete at 26.05.2006 14:06:22
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Subject: [Crisp] Clarification for error situations needed
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org

Dear all,

We are trying to get some corner cases of our DCHK implementation right. 
This one tracks back to IRIS core itself and is about sending an 
inexistent/not supported registryType or entityClass in a query to a 
server, for instance:

    <lookupEntity registryType="inexistent_type_here" 
entityName="denic.de" entityClass="inexistent_class_here"/>

I am unsure about what the correct answer from the server would be.

VeriSign's IRIS server quits with a BEEP error 501, but this doesn't seem 
right to me: RFC 3080 defines 501 as "syntax error in parameters (e.g., 
non-valid XML)" and illustrates with two examples, in which *BEEP's own 
XML* contains wrong parameters, not the XML of the application being 
transported. This latter approach being sound for me: we shouldn't start 
mixing up errors of different layers.

To be able to solve this at the IRIS layer itself, we have the codeTypes 
<invalidName> and <invalidSearch> in RFC 3981:

  o  <invalidName> -- A name given in a query is not syntactically 
  o  <invalidSearch> -- Parameters of the corresponding query are not 
semantically meaningful.

But I am not sure which one should apply here: A "name" was rather meant 
to be an "entity name", I don't think this to be the correct error code. 
OTOH, values of query attributes are somehow "parameters" of the "query" 
(it's actually not a query, but a lookup, however that should not be 
relevant here). 

Alternatively a more neutral

   o  <nameNotFound> -- The name given in a query does not match a known 

could be returned, since at the end of the day, the lack of a match is 
true. But then the futility of further queries for that registryType or 
entityClass is not communicated to the client.

You see: two RFC authors, two different implementations. What do you 
think? And what are doing other implementations out there?

Best regards,

Crisp mailing list