IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [provreg] Inconsistent Domain Status Value Guidance in RFC 5731

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Fri, 11 September 2015 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <JGould@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 33E7B1B496B for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Z7Wf8yC5uqUx for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f99.google.com (mail-qg0-f99.google.com [209.85.192.99]) (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 ED5DA1B4969 for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgez77 with SMTP id z77so4038672qge.1 for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:59:55 -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:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=QLBb6IalbifkCOodbbUwySaCQPR/oB6IYDkUC2iaPkY=; b=fbg4bx0xPanye6gED0RT8PGRLbJY8LoH9ZvTDgJysyQ5qtQjZ0cRXgQMSk4Ny/8xbq CUwLdqJTLUDT49MF/wzlB0BNhkxCECRgUsmYHAU3ipCe71M1pLpIsDHs9rBmP6GYthxX 6u97BN7T14m7n4ent1NsRbVKupdgIWl0z1YD+hsu8bwd9RXhuZ0mM265R1s1WJFGQ7df rS77h0lFwXV5kXSl50tia55h2m/GsIcG891KhPSG+XTZiTbEWB+/mn6i4u8EUki3Anxj DA/lJ3DIcKal6JMp9l4bM+87JT/pEGgCsoToUHlL04+6Ftq3Cpueqebzbzoqqk+1RTep X/TQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk45Gjz/X9DQOJf66q0FoCqUsUpZQ0LUSumSfSgnL3c9K1rgqQAazOrr0iamXbWGL2j9dNbw5w2PEnPoGNQq5mlIEfg+A==
X-Received: by 10.140.85.147 with SMTP id n19mr51383118qgd.56.1441972795048; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id v86sm3227qkv.0.2015.09.11.04.59.54 for <provreg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:59:55 -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 t8BBxsK8032756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <provreg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:59:54 -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 07:59:54 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Thread-Topic: [provreg] Inconsistent Domain Status Value Guidance in RFC 5731
Thread-Index: AdDshPQ1r2kOebPHS1yh9BbwRNMx5wAJfG4A
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:59:53 +0000
Message-ID: <7EAA9955-6334-49AB-9294-49B8B50A2C23@verisign.com>
References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A082789@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A082789@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_7EAA9955633449AB929449B8B50A2C23verisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/provreg/gLgSBKvVkUnUDseKtfkgkuAJkOs>
Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" <provreg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 11:59:58 -0000

Scott,

It doesn’t “tickle any memories”, but making the status optional (“Zero or more OPTIONAL”) in the info response leaves it up to server policy whether or not to return “the at least one associated status value".   It makes sense in describing the statuses in section 2.3 that there must be at least one status, and leave the return of the statuses optional in the info response based on server policy.  I’m not sure why the server would not want to return the statuses, but the protocol supports such a policy.


—


JG


[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

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

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

On Sep 11, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com<mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com>> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg@ietf.org<mailto:provreg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email