[ire] "resend" attribute in "deposit" element.

Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at> Fri, 29 March 2013 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEC221F9406 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.33
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vN+f5D8N99RV for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C680C21F9402 for <ire@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nics-exch.sbg.nic.at ([]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.49 ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:27:26 +0100
Received: from NICS-EXCH.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::486:1ecc:eabc:531e]) by NICS-EXCH.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::486:1ecc:eabc:531e%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:27:23 +0100
From: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
To: "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: "resend" attribute in "deposit" element.
Thread-Index: Ac4shj7+b9scwC9ySlWUUK04pAlE9w==
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:27:22 +0000
Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE0750982F68A@NICS-EXCH.sbg.nic.at>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Mark Hofstetter <mark.hofstetter@univie.ac.at>
Subject: [ire] "resend" attribute in "deposit" element.
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <ire.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ire>
List-Post: <mailto:ire@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:27:29 -0000


We're in the late stages of implementing our escrow export script, and have discussed internally the purpose of the "resend" attribute in the "deposit" element itself. 

Reading through the definition, this attribute is not related to the *creation* of the escrow deposit, but rather to its *transport* (Our understanding is that the id attribute is more related to the creation of the file). 

More specifically, we don't see a reason why the "resend" attribute should actually be contained in the file itself, because failure to "send" the file to the Escrow provider is completely unrelated to the contents of the file. 

If a transport attempt fails, a registry should simply be able to rename the (successfully created, validated) escrow file, and just retry the *transport*, rather than the *creation*. However, since the "resend" attribute is included in the (compressed/encrypted/signed) file itself (in addition to the file name!), a failed *transport* attempt (eg. a interrupted upload) requires registries to essentially restart the generation:  modify the original escrow dump, and repeat the whole split/compress/encrypt/sign steps. 

We hence believe that the "resend" attribute should be removed from the definition of the "deposit" element. It is not only redundant (since it's also included in the file name itself), but its inclusion in the escrow content itself is actually misleading, and puts extra burden on the escrow process. *If* ICANN's intent with the "resend" attribute was to reflect whether a file has been re-*generated* (and not just re-*sent*), we propose to change the current structure as follows:

- Keep the "resend" part of the file names, and provide clear instructions that this number is to be increased when *transport* of the deposit failed, and is repeated with the identical file contents (retransmission).
- Remove the "resend" attribute from the "deposit" element.
- (Optionally) add a "revision" attribute to the "deposit" element, and provide clear instructions that the number contained in that attribute is to be increased when the *creation* of a deposit with an identical "id" is performed (re-generation).

Feedback appreciated