IETF Logo Mail Archive

[provreg] Inconsistent Domain Status Value Guidance in RFC 5731

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Fri, 11 September 2015 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FB21B2FFD for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 8GC01zSig2Id for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f100.google.com (mail-oi0-f100.google.com [209.85.218.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 728B61B2E9A for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiev17 with SMTP id v17so4001806oie.0 for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rcFYcRdw0WQwznQCNzrlDq/Ls51nLRWoJvHugPsuHyk=; b=ffYPDYadIJRny7pAjQLdA01Bfeohb4JRvfhbgP1dUalu2/E9U9/6lOBRmHq6LxmoJj S7cTIXwnD60+JYLhrWNkAxy8lDLMoGXFNkSC+FJcw+neUJT0RqY/xUkmzUMemh9UPR6K IrJLge2+moUucU+UP9H0wcLz2ubsRgKKnIbgjeuvcQy2Tjn7IisKCFqRG5wuMWBCTmKi CSP58PD9VOrTYfTOSgOZQrOKk0/XMkBlay4V/xJA2w45q++GeFHmnk8En7US4ZN7Yk/T Rp9r4Qj5hf3ZifM5BMZ2A3s+iOnjK0j97/m+t336a2/tdL+4Wg2DKWi5fNJdlE6TCppX o8hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/booMrfR4+ZpqotmyZI1eVSCEOMn/H/tSEVZNJhsBn2COKY/aOd1FgyS6YuU3xCEt4IHTNwpEebJGqz6K6+QFIXXO8A==
X-Received: by 10.140.133.135 with SMTP id 129mr65124772qhf.95.1441970898705; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id m29sm100440qkl.2.2015.09.11.04.28.18 for <provreg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8BBSIHg029052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:28:18 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:28:17 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "provreg@ietf.org" <provreg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Inconsistent Domain Status Value Guidance in RFC 5731
Thread-Index: AdDshPQ1r2kOebPHS1yh9BbwRNMx5w==
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:28:17 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A082789@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/provreg/fSD5zfxYzViln36HoyOvmb-36AI>
Subject: [provreg] Inconsistent Domain Status Value Guidance in RFC 5731
X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPP discussion list <provreg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/provreg>, <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/provreg/>
List-Post: <mailto:provreg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg>, <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:28:21 -0000

I received a mail note from someone asking about a difference in the text that appears in RFC 5731 and the schema that is supposed to support that text. First, the text from Section 2.3:

"A domain object MUST always have at least one associated status value".

Text from Section 3.1.2 (info response):

"Zero or more OPTIONAL <domain:status> elements that contain the current status descriptors associated with the domain"

The schema matches the 3.1.2 text. I can't remember why or how we ended up with text that says "MUST always have at least one" in one section and "Zero or more OPTIONAL" in another section. Does this tickle any memories for anyone?

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email