Re: [eppext] Fw: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-00.txt

["Linlin Zhou" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Patrick,
Thanks for your review. Please see my feedback below.

Regards,
Linlin

> -----原始邮件----- 
> 发件人: "Patrick Mevzek" <[e-mail]> 
> 发送时间: 2015-05-17 08:14:33 (星期日) 
> 收件人: [e-mail] 
> 抄送: 
> 主题: Re: [eppext] Fw: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-00.txt 
> 
> Hello Linlin, Ning, Chao, Xiaodong, and James, 
> 
> Linlin Zhou <[e-mail]> 2015-05-04 10:28 
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. 
> > 
> > 
> > Title : Registry Reseller Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 
> > Authors : Linlin Zhou 
> > Ning Kong 
> > Chao Qi 
> > Xiaodong Lee 
> > James Gould 
> > Filename : draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-00.txt 
> > Pages : 16 
> > Date : 2015-05-04 
> 
> I'm implementing it in my opensource EPP client, and I have the 
> following comments/questions: 
> 
> - the resName node is of type "string", without any lower limit of 
> length, I believe it would make sense to mandate at least one 
> character… 
> 
Agree. A minLength attibute will be added.

> - since create and update operations are extended for all 3 kind of 
> core EPP objects (domain, host, contact), there should be some more 
> explanations on what happens when a domain name is created with 
> reseller X, where in-bailiwick hosts of this domain are created with 
> reseller Y and contacts used for the domain were created with reseller 
> Z. Does that make any sense? Does the registry want to permit this 
> case? 
> 
I think this issue depends on registry policy. In many registries, this scenario is allowed.

> - there should be some explanations on what happens for a domain name 
> with a reseller that get transfered to another registrar (where 
> obvisouly the given previous reseller would not exist). Will the 
> reseller info be automatically removed after the transfer finishes? 
> 
If a domain is transfered to a new registrar, the registrar or reseller will do a domian update operation to update the corresponding reseller information.

> - I'm not sure to understand completely the update case. 
> In short, in my understanding, I would expect that there would be a 
> sentence stating that "only one add, or rem or chg element is 
> permitted", so that there are not mix of add/rem/chg, because in that 
> later case it would be difficult to understand what happens. 
> Also in that case there should be explanations on what happens when 
> the registrar does an add where the domain already has a reseller (for 
> me that should be rejected, because a registrar should do a chg in 
> that case), and what happens for a del where the domain has no 
> reseller (this could be handled as a noop), and what happens for a chg 
> where there is no reseller for now (this should be rejected) 
> 
Yes, this should be "only one" element, I'll make it explicitely.
The three examples you mentioned should be rejected. Error codes defined in RFC5730 should be included in the response.

> For the chg case, there should be a clear explanation on what happens 
> if we have a resID+resName currently but the chg element contains only 
> the resID… will the resName be removed automatically? This should be 
> more specified, as it is similar to that postalAddress problem in core 
> EPP.
Yes, it is similar to the postalAddress problem. I think this is also a registry policy issue. For example, many registries do not allow to updat ID only. You must update ID and at least a name.
I'd like to see more feedbacks from WG. If this problem indeed makes others confused, I'll try to add some text next version.
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Mevzek 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> EppExt mailing list 
> [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext