Re: [eppext] New draft for keyrelay available

[Maarten Bosteels <[e-mail]>]

I completely agree with James' argumentation and recommendation.

Best regards,
Maarten

From: <Gould>, James <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday 5 February 2015 15:08
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Rik Ribbers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Miek Gieben <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Maarten Bosteels <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [eppext] New draft for keyrelay available

Scott,

I believe that RFC 5730 is not limited to a certain class of objects that can be provisioned.  A create of a transient, immutable message object is a transform command and the use of a poll response supports a query command.  In this case the server is being used to support the passing of messages between two clients.  There is no idempotency issue between the clients and the server since the object is immutable, but there is an idempotency issue between the participating clients that could be addressed by including a unique relay identifier in the relay message that the consuming client can simply verify against previously applied relay identifiers ahead of applying the relay message.  There could be other use cases were clients need to communicate through the server using a transient object message pattern.

My recommendation to the authors of the Key Relay Extension is to make the draft an object mapping with a create transform command, a the poll response, and with a unique relay identifier to address the end-to-end idempotency concern.


—


JG


[cid:[e-mail]]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[e-mail]

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Feb 5, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Antoin Verschuren [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:45 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: Gould, James; Rik Ribbers; Miek Gieben; Maarten Bosteels;
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [eppext] New draft for keyrelay available

Scott,

What do you considder a duplication?

The exact same message being sent or received more than once. This introduces a risk of inconsistency between client and server if there isn't a way to provide command idempotency, which is one of the reasons I prefer an approach that involves creating a transient object. Note that Section 2 of RFC 5730 includes this statement about EPP commands:

"EPP commands fall into three categories: session management commands, query commands, and object transform commands."

Which of these categories does the <relay> command fall into? The draft describes it as a "transient" command, and there's no mention of "transient" commands in 5730.

Scott