[eppext] Implementation of draft-mayrhofer-eppext-servicemessage-00.txt
Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com> Sun, 24 May 2015 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <patrick@shaktot.patoche.org>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E1E1AD378 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2015 15:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.788
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CxrwRri33MhC for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2015 15:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaktot.patoche.org (shaktot.patoche.org [212.85.152.86]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B671AD37C for <eppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2015 15:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaktot.patoche.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by shaktot.patoche.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id t4OM8keu020059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 May 2015 00:08:46 +0200
Received: (from patrick@localhost) by shaktot.patoche.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t4OM8jhC020058; Mon, 25 May 2015 00:08:45 +0200
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 00:08:44 +0200
From: Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com>
To: eppext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150524220844.GA12639@home.patoche.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Scanned-By: shaktot_dot_patoche_dot_org on 212.85.152.86
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/XsZLVPzLQOICOaVm4Tg4p2v6CY0>
Cc: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
Subject: [eppext] Implementation of draft-mayrhofer-eppext-servicemessage-00.txt
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 22:09:02 -0000
Hello Alexander, I'm implementing your draft draft-mayrhofer-eppext-servicemessage-00.txt in the Net::DRI EPP client. I have the following feedback: - while making no change technically, I would strongly recommend to defined another namespace, to convey more information. I'm specifically concerned on the "resData" part which seems to me too generic. Maybe something called "servicemessage" like the draft name itself? - "their contents MUST be from the same EPP transaction." You should defined "EPP transaction". Why not just saying that the response element, if present must be the response given by the server to the "request" element? RFC5730 speaks more of command/response instead of request/response. ("An EPP client interacts with an EPP server by sending a command to the server and receiving a response from the server.") For homogeneity, shouldn't you use command instead of request? - the first example in §3.3 still has resData-1.0 while the draft defines resData-1.1 - I fear it to be too generic, specifically that part: An OPTIONAL "any other" element from "any other" namespace which is exhibited by this example: <data> <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <response> indeed as noted, if things go forward, the <epp> node should disappear since the response node is defined as possible direct child of data. - in your first example you have: <epp xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0 epp-1.0.xsd"> […] <message xmlns="http://tld-box.at/xmlns/resdata-1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" type="TransferApproved"> The xsi namespace declaration should be put on the epp node instead. Also the domain namespace is not defined anywhere. Also for this example, the only one where <message> is not the only child of <resData> you may wish to give some advices to know if for this specific case it is expected to have both trnData & message in the same notification, or if it may happen/if it is allowed that they are carried separately in 2 messages. - I believe you should add an example with the reftrID element Especially in the third case (type=ResponseRecovered), shouldn't there be a reftrID element with the clTRID/svTRID from the inner message? - for the ResponseRecovered type, should the client expect that the message qDate corresponds to when the connection has been interrupted? If not, for example if the message is asynchronously added by the registry, shouldn't there be somewhere a timestamp telling when the connection was broken and the messages generated? Also, I believe there should be some considerations added for this case: when some registrars are attempting to do operations as fast as possible, during races (domain name grabbing, landrushes, etc…) with this feature some registrars may decide to cut (on the TLS level) the connection as soon as their message is sent in order not to wait for the server reply nor parse it at that time since they know they will get the server reply anyway later through a service message. So going for a rare case and a failback, this case can become the standard way of operating, which is probably not suited. The specification should discuss that I believe, even if it is mostly registry policy. - I believe the 4th example shows the problem with a simple list of key/value: <entry name="status">serverUpdateProhibited</entry> <entry name="comment">testcase comment freeze (2014-12-28T13:48:22.097813Z)</entry> <entry name="status">serverTransferProhibited</entry> <entry name="comment">testcase comment freeze (2014-12-28T13:48:22.097813Z)</entry> entries are linked together, each comment is probably specific to its previous sibling. This may be obvious for a human in this example, but makes no generic way for a computer to derive this. So another schema should be found if possible. It strikes me specifically for the status element since the core EPP already allows an optional free text attached to status values… HTH, -- Patrick Mevzek
- [eppext] Implementation of draft-mayrhofer-eppext… Patrick Mevzek