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

[Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]>]

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…

- 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?

- 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?

- 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)

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.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek