RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Wed, 31 July 2002 22:08 UTC
Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20016 for <provreg-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:08:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6VM3to2011366 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:03:55 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6VM3tcK011365 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:03:55 +0200 (MEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f
Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6VM3so2011360 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:03:54 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA29429; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:04:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PX4P7YPY>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:03:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FCD1@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Subject: RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:03:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk
> When I wrote the draft at the beginning, I was actually > thinking exactly > your way since the pending action is performed on a specific > object mapping. > But after I finished the writing, I realized that I have to > add <paData> to > every object mapping (i.e., domain, contact, and host) that > may need this > feature. The advantage for doing so, as you explained, is > that more object > specific information can be added in. The downside is that > <paData> will > have to be defined in every object mapping (existing and > to-be-defined). > Since my main goal is to minimize the changes to existing > schemas, after > some struggle myself, I took the approach to extract the > basic elements for > notification that are object independent. But this may be > just my personal > preference in schema design. Both your suggestion and mine > should work. I > will leave it to the WG to decide which way to go. Given that I firmly believe that we should be consistent in our approach (and I don't want to try to explain to Patrik why we weren't consistent), I would strongly urge anyone who objects to my suggested compromise to speak up sooner rather than later. I'm trying to get the document edits finished in short order. > Just to be complete, taking your input, <paNotify> can be defined as > follows: > > <complexType name="paNotify"> > <sequence> > <element name="paTRID" type="epp:trIDType"/> > <element name="paDate" type="dateTime"/> > </sequence> > <attribute name="paResult" type="boolean" use="required"/> > </complexType> Yup, that's pretty much it. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6VKUMo2010532 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:30:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6VKULrU010529 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:30:21 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6VKUKo2010523 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:30:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6VKUID16082 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:30:19 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V43LL>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:31:08 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08410D@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:30:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Thanks for taking the time to look at the draft and for being receptive to our suggestion. Your idea of being consistent with transfer handling is well taken. I would like to carry this discussion further along your line of thinking. When I wrote the draft at the beginning, I was actually thinking exactly your way since the pending action is performed on a specific object mapping. But after I finished the writing, I realized that I have to add <paData> to every object mapping (i.e., domain, contact, and host) that may need this feature. The advantage for doing so, as you explained, is that more object specific information can be added in. The downside is that <paData> will have to be defined in every object mapping (existing and to-be-defined). Since my main goal is to minimize the changes to existing schemas, after some struggle myself, I took the approach to extract the basic elements for notification that are object independent. But this may be just my personal preference in schema design. Both your suggestion and mine should work. I will leave it to the WG to decide which way to go. Just to be complete, taking your input, <paNotify> can be defined as follows: <complexType name="paNotify"> <sequence> <element name="paTRID" type="epp:trIDType"/> <element name="paDate" type="dateTime"/> </sequence> <attribute name="paResult" type="boolean" use="required"/> </complexType> The <paTRID> will consist of the OPTIONAL clTRID and the svTRID. I fully agree with you regarding the usage of <msg> in <msgQ>. I also support your idea to allow more structural information to be included in <msg> for service messaging. For example, <paNotify> (or <paData>) just says that the pending action has failed. The <msg> element in <msgQ> may be used to construct more specific error code and text explaining why it failed. These error codes and accompanying texts can be defined by each registry. Cheers, --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:50 AM To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P Hong et al: Having spent some more time thinking about the suggestions presented in your I-D, I now have a better feel for what you need and why I didn't particularly care for the suggestion to add a <paNotify> element. It's not the "what" that concerned me, it was the "how", and my concern was driven largely by a desire to use existing facilities and to treat notification actions consistently. We're already doing something similar when transfer actions are completed, so I spent some time thinking about one of the options described in your proposal -- use of the <resData> element. I also thought it might be OK to be a bit more verbose in the notification so that there can't be any confusion when the client tries to synchronize the notification with their own queue of pending activity. Given that these pending actions operate on objects, just like transfers, I'd like to suggest that we can do the notifications in the same way that clients are notified of completed transfer activities. That is, the <resData> element can contain the information to identify the object, and the few new elements needed to make this work get defined in the object mappings. A polled message could thus look like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0 epp-1.0.xsd"> <response> <result code="1301"> <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg> </result> <msgQ count="5" id="12345"> <qDate>2000-06-08T22:00:00.0Z</qDate> <msg>Pending action completed successfully.</msg> </msgQ> <resData> <domain:paData xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 domain-1.0.xsd"> <domain:name paResult="1">example.tld</domain:name> <domain:clTRID>ABC-12345</domain:clTRID> <domain:svTRID>54321-XYZ</domain:svTRID> <domain:paDate>2000-06-08T21:59:00.0Z</domain:paDate> </domain:paData> </resData> <trID> <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID> <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID> </trID> </response> </epp> Note that the <msg> element in the <msgQ> tells the client what happened, and everything the client needs to figure out which object is involved is carried in the <domain:paData> element. I thought it best to include both TRIDs (with an optional clTRID) to exactly mirror the TRIDs returned in the server's response to the original request. The <paDate> element notes when the action was actually completed, just as we note dates and times related to transfers. OK, hack away. We might be able to get by with less info to identify the client's transaction, but doing it this way is consistent with the transfer notification mechanism and it provides some detail that might make client reconciliation easier. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6VCoKo2005920 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:50:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6VCoKUm005919 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:50:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6VCoJo2005914 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:50:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA18279 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:51:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PXVABAF8>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:50:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FCC8@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:50:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong et al: Having spent some more time thinking about the suggestions presented in your I-D, I now have a better feel for what you need and why I didn't particularly care for the suggestion to add a <paNotify> element. It's not the "what" that concerned me, it was the "how", and my concern was driven largely by a desire to use existing facilities and to treat notification actions consistently. We're already doing something similar when transfer actions are completed, so I spent some time thinking about one of the options described in your proposal -- use of the <resData> element. I also thought it might be OK to be a bit more verbose in the notification so that there can't be any confusion when the client tries to synchronize the notification with their own queue of pending activity. Given that these pending actions operate on objects, just like transfers, I'd like to suggest that we can do the notifications in the same way that clients are notified of completed transfer activities. That is, the <resData> element can contain the information to identify the object, and the few new elements needed to make this work get defined in the object mappings. A polled message could thus look like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0 epp-1.0.xsd"> <response> <result code="1301"> <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg> </result> <msgQ count="5" id="12345"> <qDate>2000-06-08T22:00:00.0Z</qDate> <msg>Pending action completed successfully.</msg> </msgQ> <resData> <domain:paData xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 domain-1.0.xsd"> <domain:name paResult="1">example.tld</domain:name> <domain:clTRID>ABC-12345</domain:clTRID> <domain:svTRID>54321-XYZ</domain:svTRID> <domain:paDate>2000-06-08T21:59:00.0Z</domain:paDate> </domain:paData> </resData> <trID> <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID> <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID> </trID> </response> </epp> Note that the <msg> element in the <msgQ> tells the client what happened, and everything the client needs to figure out which object is involved is carried in the <domain:paData> element. I thought it best to include both TRIDs (with an optional clTRID) to exactly mirror the TRIDs returned in the server's response to the original request. The <paDate> element notes when the action was actually completed, just as we note dates and times related to transfers. OK, hack away. We might be able to get by with less info to identify the client's transaction, but doing it this way is consistent with the transfer notification mechanism and it provides some detail that might make client reconciliation easier. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6V0Rso2001366 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:27:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6V0RsBI001365 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:27:54 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6V0Rqo2001360 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:27:53 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA29085 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:28:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PX4P7HNB>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:27:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FCC4@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:27:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk OK, call me fickle, but after thinking about this for a few more hours, reading the draft again, and getting away from the office I think I know of a way to make this action completion notice thing work while making everyone happy. We're already doing something similar when <transfer> command actions are completed; consistency would be a good thing. I'll work up an example and send it to the list tomorrow morning. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6UIRLo2028898 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:27:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6UIRLlY028897 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:27:21 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6UIRJo2028892 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:27:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08932 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PXVAA2CW>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:27:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FCC2@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EP P Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:27:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > http://epp-ver-04.sourceforge.net/IETF/draft-liu-epp-pa-notify-00.txt [snip] > This is a strawman proposal intended to summarize the recent > discussions on > related topics and to bring more focused discussion to bring > this issue to a > conlusion. Your comments are greatly appreciated. I like the way the document explores the issues of service message notification, and it provides rational arguments (except for one*) to explain why a service message convention might be useful. I do have two specific concerns: - * Statements like "current EPP core specifications do not address the notification messaging in a generic way" are incorrect and misleading. If anything, the current <msg> element is _too_ generic -- there are no specific formatting "rules" for what constitutes a service message. That's about as generic as things can get. This sort of statement would be accurate if reworded to something like "to provide maximum flexibility for server operators, current EPP core specifications do not define specific service message formats". - The proposed <paNotify> element doesn't have to be added to the core schema at all. Everything that's being suggested can be done within the current (well, the soon-to-be-modified) <msg> element. To hack Hong's example a bit, here's how what's being proposed can be done within the scope of the changes we've already talked about on the list: S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0 S: epp-1.0.xsd"> S: <response> S: <result code="1301"> S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg> S: </result> S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345"> S: <qDate>2000-06-08T22:00:00.0Z</qDate> S: <msg>Pending action completed successfully. S: <paNotify paResult="1"> S: <paTRID>54321-XYZ</paTRID> S: </paNotify> S: </msg> S: </msgQ> S: <trID> S: <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID> S: <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID> S: </trID> S: </response> S:</epp> Note how the <paNotify> element can be carried in the <msg> element. No fuss, no muss. Here's what the changed <msg> element data type is going to look like to support mixed content: <complexType name="mixedMsgType" mixed="true"> <sequence> <any processContents="skip" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </sequence> <attribute name="lang" type="language" default="en"/> </complexType> The 'processContents="skip"' attribute tells the parser to skip schema validation for any XML found within the element, which means that validation (if needed) should be done in a software layer that consumes the message and we have complete flexibility in describing service message formats. One might argue that the content of the <msg> element _should_ be schema-specified and validatable. This could be accomplished by changing the value of processContents to either "lax" (validate the content if at all possible, but don't choke if it can't) or "strict" (validate the content). I might be convinced to go with "lax", but "strict" causes the same concerns for me about being too restrictive in what an operator can put in a service message. I'm not trying to put the kibosh on this idea. If anything, I think it's a _good_ idea to get some operator agreement on the format of service messages used in specific operating environments. My objection is that the format should NOT be part of the core schema because what fits in one environment may be constraining in another, and I truly believe that the core schema should be generic in this regard. Since Hong hasn't yet seen all of the changes that are going into the core schema I can understand how we might not be in synch. If this document were positioned as a suggestion for an informational "implementers agreement" (with the modifications I've suggested above), I'd support it 100%. I can not support adding another element to the core schema to carry service message information when there's already an element present for that purpose. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6UGfJo2028097 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:41:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6UGfJ1L028096 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:41:19 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6UGfHo2028091 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:41:17 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6UGfFD19447 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:41:16 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4MQJ>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:42:04 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840F8@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EPP Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:41:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi, all, As promised, I have submitted the I-D to IETF. Until it appears in the IETF repository, you can access the I-D from the following URL: http://epp-ver-04.sourceforge.net/IETF/draft-liu-epp-pa-notify-00.txt The gut of the proposal is to add a new OPTIONAL element in <response> to (1) identify the transaction ID that triggers the pending action; and (2) to indicate the outcome of the pending action. This is the minimum information necessary for enabling the pending action notification mechanism in EPP. This is a strawman proposal intended to summarize the recent discussions on related topics and to bring more focused discussion to bring this issue to a conlusion. Your comments are greatly appreciated. --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6TF4po2020459 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:04:51 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6TF4pYj020458 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:04:51 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6TF4oo2020453 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:04:50 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03498 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PX4P6L09>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:04:49 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCCF@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Stateless vs. Stateful Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:04:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk As part of the ongoing discussion of our IETF last call comments, Jaap, Ed, Patrik and I have been talking about the issue of a stateless vs. stateful protocol. Right now EPP has some provisions to operate both ways (see the description of "sessionless" operation in the core spec). Patrik, our AD, has suggested that the protocol needs to be either stateful or stateless, but not both, and after thinking about things some more I agree with him. Believing that we agreed long ago that a stateful session-oriented protocol is the more desirable operating mode, the stateless "sessionless" stuff is the candidate for extraction. I originally put the "sessionless" stuff in the protocol thinking that it might be useful for a low bandwidth, high latency transport like email. However, it would also be possible to keep the core protocol completely stateful and session-oriented (and thus a bit simpler) while still working in such an environment if the transport mapping were defined appropriately. With email, for example, a transport mapping could be written to say that all of the needed commands must be sent in one message/session. Anyway, to get back to the point I think we need to remove the "sessionless" features from the core protocol to get the documents ready for the IESG. What that would mean is the removal of the optional credentials elements from the commands, and changing the corresponding text. Does this cause any issues for anyone? -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6T1pwo2017548 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:51:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6T1pwCm017547 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:51:58 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6T1pso2017542 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:51:57 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6T1pqD21063 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 01:51:53 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4K61>; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840EA@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: July milestones Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:52:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g6T1pvo2017543 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Ed and Jaap, I would also like to bring up the EPP "push". I understand that this is not part of the core, but it is also a desirable feature. We have been working on the "push" draft for a while. I am holding it off for the moment, pending the outcome of "pending operation" notification solution in EPP. Cheers, --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Edward Lewis [mailto:edlewis@arin.net] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 9:48 AM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Cc: edlewis@arin.net; jaap@sidn.nl Subject: July milestones Fortunately, addressing the IESG comments on the core drafts isn't a July milestone. But these are: JUL 02 First draft of EPP over SMTP JUL 02 Decision on need for a EPP Guidelines draft The first has had some volunteers, but I don't know it much progress has been made. The second has been a weak "go ahead" on it, but that has taken a back seat to the core drafts and the IESG comments. There is only one other milestone on the charter - "scheduling interoperability tests" which is a misnomer. It should read "Interoperability Report" (since the IETF doesn't conduct/endorse testing of implementations - this is a political correctness distinction). I mention the "one other" milestone because, IMHO, there is a need to have more in there. Such as progress on the BEEP transport draft, SMTP work, and revisiting the core drafts based on implementation experience and trying for the next level of standardization. So, any comments on the above and future milestones? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QICYo2004257 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:12:34 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6QICYGq004256 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:12:34 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QICXo2004250 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:12:33 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6QICTD28816 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:12:30 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4KCZ>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:13:17 -0400 Message-ID: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA8107BD9C@stntexch2.va.neustar.com> From: "Zhang, Ning" <Ning.Zhang@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: BEEP Document Comments (was RE: July milestones) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:12:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Thanks for the comments. >> Well, we do have some current comments on the document...but Rick's >> question is still germane, what community is forming around a BEEP >> transport for EPP? > There are also some old comments that haven't been completely addressed: > > http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00010.html > > Specifically, the TCP transport clarification and "Content-Type: text/xml" > comments. Also, the IESG is getting picky about splitting references into > normative and informative subsections, so that should be done in the > document. We are aware of this. It just did not get changed in the last draft. > New comment/thought: would it be wise to consider Marshall's transient > profile identifier ideas, described here:? > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-beep-transientid-02.txt I think that it would be good idea to following this practice. Thanks, -Ning Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QGYXo2003648 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:34:33 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6QGYXtq003647 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:34:33 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QGYWo2003642 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:34:32 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09336; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVGLVWX>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:34:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCC4@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, jaap@sidn.nl Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: BEEP Document Comments (was RE: July milestones) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:34:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > Well, we do have some current comments on the document...but Rick's > question is still germane, what community is forming around a BEEP > transport for EPP? There are also some old comments that haven't been completely addressed: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00010.html Specifically, the TCP transport clarification and "Content-Type: text/xml" comments. Also, the IESG is getting picky about splitting references into normative and informative subsections, so that should be done in the document. New comment/thought: would it be wise to consider Marshall's transient profile identifier ideas, described here:? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-beep-transientid-02.txt -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QFkBo2003332 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:46:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6QFkA8s003331 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:46:10 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [192.149.252.33]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QFk9o2003326 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:46:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: from ops.arin.net (ops.arin.net [192.149.252.141]) by smtp1.arin.net (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6QBiK23077707; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:44:20 GMT Received: from [192.149.252.226] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA29444; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: edlewis@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: <a05111b05b9671ee34a0f@[192.149.252.226]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207260829430.11391-100000@flash.ar.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207260829430.11391-100000@flash.ar.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:45:48 -0400 To: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> Subject: Re: July milestones Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <jaap@sidn.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Well, we do have some current comments on the document...but Rick's question is still germane, what community is forming around a BEEP transport for EPP? At 8:31 AM -0700 7/26/02, Rick Wesson wrote: >On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Edward Lewis wrote: > >> I mention the "one other" milestone because, IMHO, there is a need to >> have more in there. Such as progress on the BEEP transport draft, > >I'd like to hear from anyone who is interested in a BEEP transport moving >forward. I've always been an advocate but is there anyone interested in >using a BEEP transport? > >-rick -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QFWKo2003255 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:32:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6QFWKZR003254 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:32:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bean.ar.com (bean.ar.com [66.123.187.68]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QFWIo2003249 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:32:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from flash.ar.com (wessorh@flash [66.123.187.80]) by bean.ar.com (8.12.2/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g6QFVdlo002427; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:31:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> To: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <jaap@sidn.nl> Subject: Re: July milestones In-Reply-To: <a05111b01b967020f885a@[192.149.252.226]> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207260829430.11391-100000@flash.ar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Edward Lewis wrote: > I mention the "one other" milestone because, IMHO, there is a need to > have more in there. Such as progress on the BEEP transport draft, I'd like to hear from anyone who is interested in a BEEP transport moving forward. I've always been an advocate but is there anyone interested in using a BEEP transport? -rick Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QDlQo2002477 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:47:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6QDlQDg002476 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:47:26 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [192.149.252.33]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QDlOo2002471 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:47:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: from ops.arin.net (ops.arin.net [192.149.252.141]) by smtp1.arin.net (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6Q9je23075622; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:45:40 GMT Received: from [192.149.252.226] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA28386; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: edlewis@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: <a05111b01b967020f885a@[192.149.252.226]> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:47:38 -0400 To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> Subject: July milestones Cc: edlewis@arin.net, jaap@sidn.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g6QDlPo2002472 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Fortunately, addressing the IESG comments on the core drafts isn't a July milestone. But these are: JUL 02 First draft of EPP over SMTP JUL 02 Decision on need for a EPP Guidelines draft The first has had some volunteers, but I don't know it much progress has been made. The second has been a weak "go ahead" on it, but that has taken a back seat to the core drafts and the IESG comments. There is only one other milestone on the charter - "scheduling interoperability tests" which is a misnomer. It should read "Interoperability Report" (since the IETF doesn't conduct/endorse testing of implementations - this is a political correctness distinction). I mention the "one other" milestone because, IMHO, there is a need to have more in there. Such as progress on the BEEP transport draft, SMTP work, and revisiting the core drafts based on implementation experience and trying for the next level of standardization. So, any comments on the above and future milestones? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QB68o2001893 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:06:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6QB68EC001892 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:06:08 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6QB67o2001887 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:06:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA04368 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVGLJDB>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:06:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCBF@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: <status> command - one more opinion Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:06:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > I support the idea to remove the <status> command from EPP. Given that no one has provided any reason at all to leave it in, plan on it being gone in the next edition of the specification. I'll leave the client TRID stuff optional, as it is now. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6Q2Zjo2029967 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:35:45 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6Q2Zj2C029966 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:35:45 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6Q2Zho2029961 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:35:44 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6Q2ZfD12685 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 02:35:42 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQV11K>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:35:36 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840D8@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: <status> command - one more opinion Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:36:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I support the idea to remove the <status> command from EPP. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Burbidge [mailto:robert.burbidge@poptel.coop] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:33 AM To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: <status> command - one more opinion On the whole, I think that <status> command could be removed from the specification without causing major problems. Rob Burbidge Poptel Limited Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PKtIo2027846 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:55:18 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PKtI59027845 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:55:18 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PKtGo2027840 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:55:17 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6PKtFD06622 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:55:15 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V42TY>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:56:02 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840D2@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:56:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Janusz, That is exactly the problem I had when I first raised the issue on the list. I fully understand your concerns about complexity. In my upcoming draft, I will present a few options, and hopefully the WG will choose one with minimum impacts on the core documents. Cheers, --Hong -----Original Message----- From: janusz sienkiewicz [mailto:janusz@libertyrms.info] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:32 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: Daniel Manley; ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Liu, Hong Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Scott, Liu, It is true that a trace of 'the concept of offline verification before provisioning an object ' can be found in domain mapping document. The problem is the part of the document that deals with the subject is very vague. There is not much guidance have to use the concept. Such a concept does not exist at XML schema definition level. I think more work is required on definition and refinement of the concept. New result codes and errror conditions could be a result of the process. I assume such a definition is a nontrivial task. That's why I suggested a solution based on generic extension mechanism. It could be a quick potentially temporary solution. From Liu's note I assume he is going to prepare something in the matter. I hope it will fill the gaps I can see in domain mapping document. Janusz Sienkiewicz "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > > If we have such 'an extension mechanism' what is purpose of > > this thread? Why > > are we introducing new return codes and messages? The are > > several extension > > mechanisms (<extension>, <value>) available but for some > > reason none of them > > can be used when there is a need for protocol extension. Is > > this protocol > > really extensible? > > The whole question is ultimately one of "does this belong in the core > protocol" or "does this belong in an extension". It seems to me, based on > list discussion over the last two years, that the concept might be of > general enough interest to be in the core protocol. > > I haven't seen anyone (other than you above) suggest that the existing > extension mechanisms can't be used. I disagreed with your assertion of the > <value> element being an appropriate place to park "pending" information > because the <value> element isn't part of the existing extension framework. > In truth it would be quite easy to define an extension, but given that we > already have the concept of offline verification before provisioning an > object in the domain mapping document (and have had it in there for a while) > it seems logical to be consistent when dealing with updates that require > offline verification. > > If you disagree with the premise of Hong's suggestion being generally > useful, thus being something that should be punted to an extension, please > explain why. > > The answer to your last question is an unqualified "yes". > > -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PK8Zo2027570 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:08:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PK8ZnH027569 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:08:35 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PK8Yo2027564 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:08:34 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6PK8XD05327 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:08:33 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQVBV5>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:08:28 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840D1@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:09:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Another couple of questions for clarification. It seems that the <status> command will be removed from EPP. Do you still plan to make the clTRID mandatory for all EPP commands? Is clTRID required to be unique, if present, per client? It seems so in the spec, but I heard people say otherwise. Thanks! --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PJpso2027434 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:51:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PJpsuL027433 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:51:54 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PJpro2027428 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:51:53 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6PJppD04768 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:51:52 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQVBPM>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:51:46 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840D0@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:52:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I have a couple of questions for clarification regarding object with pending action: Does EPP stipulate that at most one pending action is allowed per object? To go a bit further, does EPP prohibit any transformation operation on an object with a pending action? Of course, query-type of operations should be allowed. Thanks! --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PJJ9o2027233 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:19:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PJJ9s9027232 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:19:09 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PJJ8o2027227 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:19:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6PJJ6D03505 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:19:07 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQVBD5>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:19:01 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840CD@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:19:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Janusz, I agree with Scott on this. Overloading an EPP field is bad for interoperability. But I do agree with you that the changes required to handle pending action should be kept minimum. On a very high level, there are two separate aspects at hand: (1) Indicating to the client in the initial response that the requested action is pending. (2) Notifying the client of the result of the pending action when it is done. I considered (1) already resolved by introducing a new result code. This thread is about is (2), which also have a number of issues: (a) provide a hook in <response> to house the notification information (b) format of the notification message (minimum set of information) (c) whether (b) should be defined in the core or as an extension What you have suggested is about (a). I disagree that we overload <value> for this purpose. Besides, you still need to resolve (b) and (c). My argument is that (b) should be defined in the core. I realize that Scott and I are crossing responses. I apologize that my response is somewhat overlapped with Scott's. I am also jumping the gun here since these issues are addressed in the draft I am writing. --Hong -----Original Message----- From: janusz sienkiewicz [mailto:janusz@libertyrms.info] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:46 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: 'janusz sienkiewicz'; Daniel Manley; ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Liu, Hong Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations If we have such 'an extension mechanism' what is purpose of this thread? Why are we introducing new return codes and messages? The are several extension mechanisms (<extension>, <value>) available but for some reason none of them can be used when there is a need for protocol extension. Is this protocol really extensible? Janusz Sienkiewicz "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > > The usage of <value> element could be extended. According to > > the epp06 spec > > the element is used only if there is an error condition. It > > could be also used > > in case of success condition for passing additional > > information. This approach > > would allow more flexibility in the future. > > The "flexibility" you describe is bad for interoperability. We already have > an extension mechanism to support return of additional information, and the > <value> element isn't part of it. > > -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PJ58o2027123 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:05:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PJ581e027122 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:05:08 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PJ56o2027117 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:05:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA07850; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVGKZGS>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:05:00 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCBC@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.info> Cc: Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:05:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > If we have such 'an extension mechanism' what is purpose of > this thread? Why > are we introducing new return codes and messages? The are > several extension > mechanisms (<extension>, <value>) available but for some > reason none of them > can be used when there is a need for protocol extension. Is > this protocol > really extensible? The whole question is ultimately one of "does this belong in the core protocol" or "does this belong in an extension". It seems to me, based on list discussion over the last two years, that the concept might be of general enough interest to be in the core protocol. I haven't seen anyone (other than you above) suggest that the existing extension mechanisms can't be used. I disagreed with your assertion of the <value> element being an appropriate place to park "pending" information because the <value> element isn't part of the existing extension framework. In truth it would be quite easy to define an extension, but given that we already have the concept of offline verification before provisioning an object in the domain mapping document (and have had it in there for a while) it seems logical to be consistent when dealing with updates that require offline verification. If you disagree with the premise of Hong's suggestion being generally useful, thus being something that should be punted to an extension, please explain why. The answer to your last question is an unqualified "yes". -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PIbHo2026978 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:37:17 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PIbHtJ026977 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:37:17 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PIbFo2026972 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:37:16 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6PIbED02258 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:37:14 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQVAY1>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:37:09 -0500 Message-ID: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA8107BD96@stntexch2.va.neustar.com> From: "Zhang, Ning" <Ning.Zhang@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-provreg-epp-beep-02.txt Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:37:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Darren, Thanks for your comments. > 2. > "Fully processes?" Note that some sort of > answer needs to be returned for every BEEP > message. You might want to make this clear, > or perhaps it's already implicit in the > description of <logout> in the other documents. This <logout> response has been described in the EPP base spec. > 2.1.2 > Consider service "epp_beep" since EPP runs over > other TCP-based transports as well. > > In the example, the second L: should be I: > > > 2.1.4 > Text "EPP" is duplicated. "Sent over the EPP EPP session" > We are aware of various typos and unforunately they did not get fixed in the last draft. It will be fixed in the next draft. > I'm not sure you should specify that piggyback data must > be piggybacked. This is more an optimization than a semantic > difference. Perhaps "MAY be piggybacked" is better. Note that > some toolkits don't even tell you whether the data was > piggybacked or not. You are right on this. "MAY be" is better. > 2.1.7 > You might want to mention what the semantics of a single EPP > channel being closed without a <logout> is supposed to do. > Something like "this is equivalent to a <logout> with no > attributes or child elements." You might also want to mention > explicitly that it's OK to close the BEEP channel after the > <logout> has been fully processed, in order that resources > could be reclaimed. We will make it clear on this in the next draft. Thanks, -Ning Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PIO8o2026788 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:24:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PIO77A026787 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:24:07 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PIO6o2026782 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:24:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04814; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WSB1BR>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:24:04 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCBB@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.com> Cc: Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:24:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > The usage of <value> element could be extended. According to > the epp06 spec > the element is used only if there is an error condition. It > could be also used > in case of success condition for passing additional > information. This approach > would allow more flexibility in the future. The "flexibility" you describe is bad for interoperability. We already have an extension mechanism to support return of additional information, and the <value> element isn't part of it. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHvVo2026622 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:57:31 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PHvUJm026621 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:57:30 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([216.94.172.167]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHvUo2026616 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:57:30 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dev3.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.1.204] helo=libertyrms.com) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17XmrV-0003I7-00; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:57:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3D403C00.8F794326@libertyrms.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:57:20 -0400 From: janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.com> Organization: LibertyRMS Co. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> CC: Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCB9@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk The usage of <value> element could be extended. According to the epp06 spec the element is used only if there is an error condition. It could be also used in case of success condition for passing additional information. This approach would allow more flexibility in the future. The initial approach (adding new result code and message) would provide a solution for pending situations only and it could result in adding additional status codes and error conditions. Janusz Sienkiewicz "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > > I don't think any particular changes are required tp epp > > protocol to acomplish > > Hong's objective. In epp06 <result> element has child > > <value> element. The > > definition of <value> element in epp06 is more flexible than > > in epp02 (it allows > > xml extensions). I think <value> element could be used to > > indicate that the last > > operation is pending. > > Not really -- the purpose of allowing XML in the <value> element is so that > the server can identify and return any XML that might have caused an error > condition -- it's not there for extension purposes. From section 2.5 of > epp-06: > > "- Zero or more OPTIONAL <value> elements that echo client-provided > elements (including XML tag and value) that caused server error > conditions." > > -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHtMo2026581 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:55:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PHtMXg026580 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:55:22 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHtLo2026575 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:55:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6PHtKD01279 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:55:20 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQVA3M>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:55:15 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840CB@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:56:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Janusz, I understand what you suggested, but I would like to have Scott comment on the use of <value> element within <result>. On page 12 of epp-06, it states that: " - Zero or more OPTIONAL <value> elements that echo client-provided elements (including XML tag and value) that caused server error conditions." In syntax, it can be used as a hook for what I want, but in semantics, this element is not defined for that purpose. Do we really want to overload the use of this element? I would prefer to add another OPTIONAL element such as <notify> in <result> instead. I am writing a draft for the uniform treatment of pending action in EPP, hopefully to get it done by this weekend. So stay tuned... --Hong -----Original Message----- From: janusz sienkiewicz [mailto:janusz@libertyrms.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:18 PM To: Daniel Manley Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Liu, Hong Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations I don't think any particular changes are required tp epp protocol to acomplish Hong's objective. In epp06 <result> element has child <value> element. The definition of <value> element in epp06 is more flexible than in epp02 (it allows xml extensions). I think <value> element could be used to indicate that the last operation is pending. Janusz Daniel Manley wrote: > Just to chime in here... > > I like the steps described by Hong here -- a very natual use of the poll > mechanism. I understand from recent postings by Scott and Hong that a > new "Command completed successfully; action pending" response code/text > will be added to the base draft. I believe this is crutial for the > steps described below. It allows the registrar to reliable pass the > message on to the registrant that the registry is not quite finished the > operation. > > I think Hong was also looking for a well-defined and reliable schema for > poll responses. IMHO, the typical notification messages would look like > responses to <transfer op="query">, <renew>, <delete> and <info> > commands. I do see that sending an <info> response and leaving it up to > the registrar to figure out what changed isn't the greatest idea. > Though registrars could build their systems to expect "predictable" > change to an object based on the "...action pending" response to the > previous command on that object. Otherwise, we'd have to build a > notification message shema to describe a change on an object (removal of > a status, addition of another property, etc...). > > Dan > > Liu, Hong wrote: > > >Patrik, > > > >Rick Wesson has suggested that I reword my response to you to clarify the > >issue. So here is my second try. This time, I will use an example to make it > >more concrete. > > > >Suppose the registry policy requires that every name registered go over a > >formal review before the request for registration is granted. So here is the > >typical flow of client (C, registrar) and server (S, registry) interactions, > >in the context of the four steps you outlined: > > > >(1) C sends a <create> command to the server, requesting for a name X. > >(2) S accepts X, changes its status to "pendingVerification", and sends a > >response back to C indicating command success. > >At this point, X is not registered, but is reserved so that no one else can > >take it while it is under review. > >(3) The registry completes the review and grants the registration. S removes > >the "pendingVerification" status and puts a notification into the message > >queue. > >(4) C polls and gets the notification from S that registration for X has > >been approved. > > > >What I meant by pending operation (or delayed operation in your word) is > >that at step (2), the response from S merely says that the request for > >registering X by C is received and the review process has started. The > >decision on whether the request will be eventually granted is pending for > >further review. So from EPP perspective, the command-response transaction > >may be regarded as completed by the end of step (2). However, from > >operations perspective, neither C nor S considers that the request for > >registering X is completed. I think that is where the misunderstanding kicks > >in. > > > >I hope this example explains what I meant by "pending operation". And I hope > >that you would not object to allowing EPP to do things like this. Of course, > >I am open to using any term that helps to avoid the confusion. > > > >What Scott and I were discussing is about ways to format the notification in > >step (3). Scott has already started another thread on this issue [1]... > > > >--Hong > > > >[1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-07/msg00038.html > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] > >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:32 AM > >To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se > >Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations > > > > > >--On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > > > > > > > >>I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer > >>to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not > >>call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information > >>once the pending operation is completed. > >> > >> > > > >This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution". > > > >I.e.: > > > >(1) Client send a command to server > >(2) Server respond that it has received command > >(3) Server execute the command > >(4) Client fetches the result code > > > >This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do. > > > >If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed > >execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and > >(b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is > >not possible with what you have on the table today. > > > > paf > > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Manley > Tucows, Inc. > Toronto, Canada > dmanley@tucows.com Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHgwo2026476 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:42:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PHgwG0026475 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:42:58 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHgvo2026470 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:42:57 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02265; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WSBD1V>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:42:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCB9@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.com>, Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:42:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > I don't think any particular changes are required tp epp > protocol to acomplish > Hong's objective. In epp06 <result> element has child > <value> element. The > definition of <value> element in epp06 is more flexible than > in epp02 (it allows > xml extensions). I think <value> element could be used to > indicate that the last > operation is pending. Not really -- the purpose of allowing XML in the <value> element is so that the server can identify and return any XML that might have caused an error condition -- it's not there for extension purposes. From section 2.5 of epp-06: "- Zero or more OPTIONAL <value> elements that echo client-provided elements (including XML tag and value) that caused server error conditions." -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHHfo2026176 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:17:41 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PHHfGp026175 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:17:41 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([216.94.172.167]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PHHdo2026170 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:17:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dev3.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.1.204] helo=libertyrms.com) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17XmF6-0002ba-00; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:17:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3D4032B4.34E46410@libertyrms.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:17:40 -0400 From: janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.com> Organization: LibertyRMS Co. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com> CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084098@STNTEXCH1> <3D4020F8.6020905@tucows.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I don't think any particular changes are required tp epp protocol to acomplish Hong's objective. In epp06 <result> element has child <value> element. The definition of <value> element in epp06 is more flexible than in epp02 (it allows xml extensions). I think <value> element could be used to indicate that the last operation is pending. Janusz Daniel Manley wrote: > Just to chime in here... > > I like the steps described by Hong here -- a very natual use of the poll > mechanism. I understand from recent postings by Scott and Hong that a > new "Command completed successfully; action pending" response code/text > will be added to the base draft. I believe this is crutial for the > steps described below. It allows the registrar to reliable pass the > message on to the registrant that the registry is not quite finished the > operation. > > I think Hong was also looking for a well-defined and reliable schema for > poll responses. IMHO, the typical notification messages would look like > responses to <transfer op="query">, <renew>, <delete> and <info> > commands. I do see that sending an <info> response and leaving it up to > the registrar to figure out what changed isn't the greatest idea. > Though registrars could build their systems to expect "predictable" > change to an object based on the "...action pending" response to the > previous command on that object. Otherwise, we'd have to build a > notification message shema to describe a change on an object (removal of > a status, addition of another property, etc...). > > Dan > > Liu, Hong wrote: > > >Patrik, > > > >Rick Wesson has suggested that I reword my response to you to clarify the > >issue. So here is my second try. This time, I will use an example to make it > >more concrete. > > > >Suppose the registry policy requires that every name registered go over a > >formal review before the request for registration is granted. So here is the > >typical flow of client (C, registrar) and server (S, registry) interactions, > >in the context of the four steps you outlined: > > > >(1) C sends a <create> command to the server, requesting for a name X. > >(2) S accepts X, changes its status to "pendingVerification", and sends a > >response back to C indicating command success. > >At this point, X is not registered, but is reserved so that no one else can > >take it while it is under review. > >(3) The registry completes the review and grants the registration. S removes > >the "pendingVerification" status and puts a notification into the message > >queue. > >(4) C polls and gets the notification from S that registration for X has > >been approved. > > > >What I meant by pending operation (or delayed operation in your word) is > >that at step (2), the response from S merely says that the request for > >registering X by C is received and the review process has started. The > >decision on whether the request will be eventually granted is pending for > >further review. So from EPP perspective, the command-response transaction > >may be regarded as completed by the end of step (2). However, from > >operations perspective, neither C nor S considers that the request for > >registering X is completed. I think that is where the misunderstanding kicks > >in. > > > >I hope this example explains what I meant by "pending operation". And I hope > >that you would not object to allowing EPP to do things like this. Of course, > >I am open to using any term that helps to avoid the confusion. > > > >What Scott and I were discussing is about ways to format the notification in > >step (3). Scott has already started another thread on this issue [1]... > > > >--Hong > > > >[1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-07/msg00038.html > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] > >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:32 AM > >To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se > >Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations > > > > > >--On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > > > > > > > >>I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer > >>to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not > >>call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information > >>once the pending operation is completed. > >> > >> > > > >This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution". > > > >I.e.: > > > >(1) Client send a command to server > >(2) Server respond that it has received command > >(3) Server execute the command > >(4) Client fetches the result code > > > >This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do. > > > >If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed > >execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and > >(b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is > >not possible with what you have on the table today. > > > > paf > > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Manley > Tucows, Inc. > Toronto, Canada > dmanley@tucows.com Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PG1Uo2025531 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:01:31 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6PG1Ueq025530 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:01:30 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from toronto.mail.tucows.com (bfos.tucows.com [207.136.98.11]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PG1Ro2025525 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:01:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dmanley.pc.internal.tucows.com ([10.0.10.19] helo=tucows.com) by toronto.mail.tucows.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #3) id 17Xl3O-0005HJ-00; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:01:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3D4020F8.6020905@tucows.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:02:00 -0400 From: Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020606 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se CC: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084098@STNTEXCH1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Just to chime in here... I like the steps described by Hong here -- a very natual use of the poll mechanism. I understand from recent postings by Scott and Hong that a new "Command completed successfully; action pending" response code/text will be added to the base draft. I believe this is crutial for the steps described below. It allows the registrar to reliable pass the message on to the registrant that the registry is not quite finished the operation. I think Hong was also looking for a well-defined and reliable schema for poll responses. IMHO, the typical notification messages would look like responses to <transfer op="query">, <renew>, <delete> and <info> commands. I do see that sending an <info> response and leaving it up to the registrar to figure out what changed isn't the greatest idea. Though registrars could build their systems to expect "predictable" change to an object based on the "...action pending" response to the previous command on that object. Otherwise, we'd have to build a notification message shema to describe a change on an object (removal of a status, addition of another property, etc...). Dan Liu, Hong wrote: >Patrik, > >Rick Wesson has suggested that I reword my response to you to clarify the >issue. So here is my second try. This time, I will use an example to make it >more concrete. > >Suppose the registry policy requires that every name registered go over a >formal review before the request for registration is granted. So here is the >typical flow of client (C, registrar) and server (S, registry) interactions, >in the context of the four steps you outlined: > >(1) C sends a <create> command to the server, requesting for a name X. >(2) S accepts X, changes its status to "pendingVerification", and sends a >response back to C indicating command success. >At this point, X is not registered, but is reserved so that no one else can >take it while it is under review. >(3) The registry completes the review and grants the registration. S removes >the "pendingVerification" status and puts a notification into the message >queue. >(4) C polls and gets the notification from S that registration for X has >been approved. > >What I meant by pending operation (or delayed operation in your word) is >that at step (2), the response from S merely says that the request for >registering X by C is received and the review process has started. The >decision on whether the request will be eventually granted is pending for >further review. So from EPP perspective, the command-response transaction >may be regarded as completed by the end of step (2). However, from >operations perspective, neither C nor S considers that the request for >registering X is completed. I think that is where the misunderstanding kicks >in. > >I hope this example explains what I meant by "pending operation". And I hope >that you would not object to allowing EPP to do things like this. Of course, >I am open to using any term that helps to avoid the confusion. > >What Scott and I were discussing is about ways to format the notification in >step (3). Scott has already started another thread on this issue [1]... > >--Hong > >[1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-07/msg00038.html > >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:32 AM >To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se >Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations > > >--On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > > > >>I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer >>to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not >>call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information >>once the pending operation is completed. >> >> > >This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution". > >I.e.: > >(1) Client send a command to server >(2) Server respond that it has received command >(3) Server execute the command >(4) Client fetches the result code > >This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do. > >If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed >execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and >(b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is >not possible with what you have on the table today. > > paf > > > -- Daniel Manley Tucows, Inc. Toronto, Canada dmanley@tucows.com Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6P8Wto2022850 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:32:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6P8WteT022849 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:32:55 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from popintmanex.poptel.org.uk (popintmanex.poptel.org.uk [213.55.9.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6P8Wso2022844 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:32:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: by exchange.poptel.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PNRDDYH1>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:32:51 +0100 Message-ID: <F9151633A30CD4118C9D00062939A7F19A4124@popintlonex.poptel.org.uk> From: Robert Burbidge <robert.burbidge@poptel.coop> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: <status> command - one more opinion Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:32:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On the whole, I think that <status> command could be removed from the specification without causing major problems. Rob Burbidge Poptel Limited Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OJwOo2018492 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:58:24 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OJwOwm018491 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:58:24 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OJwMo2018486 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:58:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19433; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVGJ8GZ>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:58:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCAF@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: Result code for "Command completed successfully; action pendi ng" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:58:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > Have you decide on what value of this result code would be? Thanks! No, I haven't gotten that far yet -- I'm still working through other comments received some time ago. It'll probably be either 1001 or 1302, though. Please don't make any assumptions until the updated document is published... ;-) -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OJXto2018370 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:33:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OJXtEF018369 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:33:55 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OJXso2018364 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:33:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6OJXqD13706 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:33:53 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4HHN>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:34:40 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840B9@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Result code for "Command completed successfully; action pending" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:34:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Have you decide on what value of this result code would be? Thanks! --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OHoqo2017530 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:50:52 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OHoqar017529 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:50:52 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OHopo2017524 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:50:52 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11067; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WSA3FL>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:50:49 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCAB@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Service Message Format Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:50:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > If we allow XML for '<result><msg>' for some epp implementations it > can be quite a significant change. It may affect all command responses. Indeed, and that's why it's not part of the proposal -- we're only talking about service messages that may be retrieved via the <poll> command. You correctly noticed that the current schema uses the same data type for both <msg> elements; that will have to change. I was planning on creating a new type to allow the use of mixed content only within the service message <msg> element. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OHJCo2017276 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:19:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OHJC1g017275 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:19:12 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([216.94.172.167]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OHJBo2017270 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:19:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: from dev3.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.1.204] helo=libertyrms.com) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17XPn4-0005k5-00 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:19:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3D3EE18D.F695B8A5@libertyrms.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:19:09 -0400 From: janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.com> Organization: LibertyRMS Co. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Service Message Format Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CFC1E6C4A6EDC85CC78F4512" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk --------------CFC1E6C4A6EDC85CC78F4512 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This message is related to <msg> element in Poll command (adding XML to <msg> element). I think one thing seems to be forgotten in the discussion. <msg> element is a child element for both <result> and <msgQ> elements. I think the change proposal should be more specific. It should describe proposed behaviour of <msg> element in both <msgQ> and <result> cases. If we allow XML for '<result><msg>' for some epp implementations it can be quite a significant change. It may affect all command responses. Janusz Sienkiewicz --------------CFC1E6C4A6EDC85CC78F4512 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <pre>This message is related to <msg> element in Poll command (adding XML to <msg> element). I think one thing seems to be forgotten in the discussion. <msg> element is a child element for both <result> and <msgQ> elements. I think the change proposal should be more specific. It should describe proposed behaviour of <msg> element in both <msgQ> and <result> cases.</pre> <pre>If we allow XML for '<result><msg>' for some epp implementations it can be quite a significant change. It may affect all command responses.</pre> <pre>Janusz Sienkiewicz </pre> </html> --------------CFC1E6C4A6EDC85CC78F4512-- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OGMTo2016841 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:22:29 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OGMTc5016840 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:22:29 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OGMRo2016835 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:22:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: from san.rr.com (66-74-216-166.san.rr.com [66.74.216.166]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g6OGMPE11916 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D3ED45E.40107D66@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:22:54 -0700 From: Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> Organization: Boxes! X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-provreg-epp-beep-02.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I looked over draft-ietf-provreg-epp-beep-02.txt briefly. I noticed a few minor items I thought would be worth addressing... 2. "Fully processes?" Note that some sort of answer needs to be returned for every BEEP message. You might want to make this clear, or perhaps it's already implicit in the description of <logout> in the other documents. 2.1.2 Consider service "epp_beep" since EPP runs over other TCP-based transports as well. In the example, the second L: should be I: 2.1.4 Text "EPP" is duplicated. "Sent over the EPP EPP session" I'm not sure you should specify that piggyback data must be piggybacked. This is more an optimization than a semantic difference. Perhaps "MAY be piggybacked" is better. Note that some toolkits don't even tell you whether the data was piggybacked or not. 2.1.7 You might want to mention what the semantics of a single EPP channel being closed without a <logout> is supposed to do. Something like "this is equivalent to a <logout> with no attributes or child elements." You might also want to mention explicitly that it's OK to close the BEEP channel after the <logout> has been fully processed, in order that resources could be reclaimed. Thanks for your attention! -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6ODhGo2015662 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:43:16 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6ODhGV7015661 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:43:16 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6ODhDo2015656 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:43:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA23512; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:43:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WSAG4Q>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:43:06 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD601E2C30E@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:43:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I really don't see the value in the <status> command. In its proposed form, it doesn't provide any value to the client, since the client will most likely have a pool of sessions and finding the status of the last command processed on any one of the sessions doesn't provide any valuable information. There is even more of an issue of supporting the <status> command for non-transform commands, where determining if a <check> was successfully processed is pointless and represents huge overhead for the server. Non-transform commands should simply be re-transmitted. Transform commands can also be re-transmitted or the client can use the <info> command to determine the current state of the object. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:14 AM To: 'Liu, Hong' Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes > I assume you resend this to see if there are more comments. I > don't mean to > beat up the dead horse, but I would like you to clarify the > two paragraphs > quoted below. I didn't resend it. Take a look at the message headers -- it looks like Jaap might have manually approved it for distribution to the list, or something like that. > The first quoted paragraph, could you explain a bit why "congestion > control/ack" need to be defined if the proposed change is not > made? Do you > mean application level framing for flow control (windowing > mechanism)? I > just want to understand it. This gets back to the "delayed execution" discussion. If commands don't get immediate responses, we'd have to have some mechanism in place to let the client know that commands have been received, but not processed. > The second quoted paragraph, could you clarify: > (1) What is the last command processed? Is it the last > command per registrar > (client) or the last command per session of the client? I > assume that a > client is allowed to established multiple sessions with the server. Last command completed, which might not have anything to do with a session. Remember, the session concept tends to be specific to connection-oriented transports, and we shouldn't have transport dependencies on generic commands if they can be avoided. > (2) Why is <status> command ever needed if its use is so > restricted? The > client can simply resend the command if it does not hear from > the server > after a timeout. EPP ensures idempotency for each command, so > there is no > harm to resend it. To be perfectly honest I don't think the <status> command is needed at all. It got added rather late in the review process when someone asked for the ability to check on the completion status of a previously executed command [1]. No one objected when it was discussed on this list back in September of last year. I would very much like to ditch the command for the very reasons you cited. This is a good time to agree or disagree, folks. Is the <status> command really needed or not? -Scott- [1] The thread: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00071.html http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00072.html http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00074.html Plus other messages from September 2001, all visible in the archives. Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OCrlo2015307 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:53:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OCrlXL015306 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:53:47 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (bartok.sidn.nl [193.176.144.164]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OCrio2015301 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:53:45 +0200 (MEST) Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (localhost.sidn.nl [IPv6:::1]) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OCre5d016679 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:53:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.sidn.nl) Received: (from jaap@localhost) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OCrdTh016678 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:53:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([216.94.172.167]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OCFfo2015063 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:15:41 +0200 (MEST) Received: from andrew by mail.libertyrms.com with local (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17XL3M-0000yA-00 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:15:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:15:40 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes Message-ID: <20020724081540.C2920@mail.libertyrms.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>; from shollenbeck@verisign.com on Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:13:46AM -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:13:46AM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > Last command completed, which might not have anything to do with a session. [. . .] > This is a good time to agree or disagree, folks. Is the <status> command > really needed or not? It seems to me that the apparent confusion over sessions and the <status> command shows that the command is going to be of limited value. I don't have strong feelings about it, but I now suspect it's going to be confusing to a lot of people who will discover that it won't work as they expect. Andrew -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 +1 416 646 3304 x110 Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OBd9o2014906 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:39:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OBd9WR014905 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:39:09 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (bartok.sidn.nl [193.176.144.164]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OBd6o2014900 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:39:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (localhost.sidn.nl [127.0.0.1]) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OBcw5d006117; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:38:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.sidn.nl) Message-Id: <200207241138.g6OBcw5d006117@bartok.sidn.nl> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> cc: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:13:46 -0400. <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:38:58 +0200 From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl> Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > I assume you resend this to see if there are more comments. I > don't mean to > beat up the dead horse, but I would like you to clarify the > two paragraphs > quoted below. I didn't resend it. Take a look at the message headers -- it looks like Jaap might have manually approved it for distribution to the list, or something like that. Yes, I recent it by accident. Sorry about that. jaap Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OBDto2014811 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:13:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6OBDt6n014810 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:13:55 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6OBDso2014805 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:13:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA17516; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WSA14X>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:13:47 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> Cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:13:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > I assume you resend this to see if there are more comments. I > don't mean to > beat up the dead horse, but I would like you to clarify the > two paragraphs > quoted below. I didn't resend it. Take a look at the message headers -- it looks like Jaap might have manually approved it for distribution to the list, or something like that. > The first quoted paragraph, could you explain a bit why "congestion > control/ack" need to be defined if the proposed change is not > made? Do you > mean application level framing for flow control (windowing > mechanism)? I > just want to understand it. This gets back to the "delayed execution" discussion. If commands don't get immediate responses, we'd have to have some mechanism in place to let the client know that commands have been received, but not processed. > The second quoted paragraph, could you clarify: > (1) What is the last command processed? Is it the last > command per registrar > (client) or the last command per session of the client? I > assume that a > client is allowed to established multiple sessions with the server. Last command completed, which might not have anything to do with a session. Remember, the session concept tends to be specific to connection-oriented transports, and we shouldn't have transport dependencies on generic commands if they can be avoided. > (2) Why is <status> command ever needed if its use is so > restricted? The > client can simply resend the command if it does not hear from > the server > after a timeout. EPP ensures idempotency for each command, so > there is no > harm to resend it. To be perfectly honest I don't think the <status> command is needed at all. It got added rather late in the review process when someone asked for the ability to check on the completion status of a previously executed command [1]. No one objected when it was discussed on this list back in September of last year. I would very much like to ditch the command for the very reasons you cited. This is a good time to agree or disagree, folks. Is the <status> command really needed or not? -Scott- [1] The thread: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00071.html http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00072.html http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-09/msg00074.html Plus other messages from September 2001, all visible in the archives. Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6O3e8o2012769 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:40:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6O3e8GX012768 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:40:08 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6O3e6o2012763 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:40:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6O3e4D30788 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:40:05 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4GNN>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:40:51 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E0840AF@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:40:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I assume you resend this to see if there are more comments. I don't mean to beat up the dead horse, but I would like you to clarify the two paragraphs quoted below. The first quoted paragraph, could you explain a bit why "congestion control/ack" need to be defined if the proposed change is not made? Do you mean application level framing for flow control (windowing mechanism)? I just want to understand it. The second quoted paragraph, could you clarify: (1) What is the last command processed? Is it the last command per registrar (client) or the last command per session of the client? I assume that a client is allowed to established multiple sessions with the server. (2) Why is <status> command ever needed if its use is so restricted? The client can simply resend the command if it does not hear from the server after a timeout. EPP ensures idempotency for each command, so there is no harm to resend it. Thanks in advance! --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:57 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Proposed Document Changes [snip...] The core (epp-06) document: - All text describing "asynchronous" operation needs to be removed/reworded. Instead, text describing the protocol's operating mode as "client-initiated command, server response" needs to be reinforced. Without this change we'd need to define our own "congestion control/ack" service to handle the loss of instances that may be queued in the application queue-space (as when a server goes down). [snip...] - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". [snip...] If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6NF6Lo2007955 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:06:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6NF6LLU007954 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:06:21 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (bartok.sidn.nl [193.176.144.164]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6NF6Ko2007949 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:06:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (localhost.sidn.nl [IPv6:::1]) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6NF6J5d002980 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:06:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.sidn.nl) Received: (from jaap@localhost) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6NF6JpC002979 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:06:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (www.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.192.80]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HLuho2029632 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:56:44 +0200 (MEST) Received: from HOLLENBECKLT2 (HOLLENBECK-LT2.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.72.250]) by mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6HLuXu15885 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:56:33 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <001001c22ddc$d112f210$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Proposed Document Changes Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:56:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk While in Yokohama Ed, Jaap, Patrik, and I had a chance to talk through the questions and answers [1] that we need to resolve before Patrik would feel comfortable taking the provreg protocol documents to the IESG. Here's a summary of the changes that we think need to be made before the IESG will approve the documents: The core (epp-06) document: - All text describing "asynchronous" operation needs to be removed/reworded. Instead, text describing the protocol's operating mode as "client-initiated command, server response" needs to be reinforced. Without this change we'd need to define our own "congestion control/ack" service to handle the loss of instances that may be queued in the application queue-space (as when a server goes down). - Some ASCII art illustrating this operating mode should be added for clarity. - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". - Fixing the authInfo data structure to make it extensible such that new authInfo mechanisms can be added in the future without having to change the core protocol document. The TCP transport (tcp-04) document: - Add some ASCII art describing the state machine for the protocol when carried over TCP. - Eliminate/reword all of the text describing "asynchronous" operation. Instead, it's OK to mention here that the client might be able to gain some performance efficiencies by pipelining commands, but that pipelining doesn't change the protocol's basic ping-pong operating mode. - Explicitly note that the length field in the header is in network byte order. I've also captured several editorial comments since we completed last call, and I'll get those in as well. If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6NB5Uo2006626 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:05:30 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6NB5Up5006625 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:05:30 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6NB5So2006620 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:05:29 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA20762; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVG2K1V>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:05:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC96@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Roger Castillo Cortazar'" <castillo@nic.mx>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:05:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Roger, I think the answer to your question could be found further down in the message you quoted the text from. Here's what it says about changes to the TCP draft: "- Eliminate/reword all of the text describing "asynchronous" operation. Instead, it's OK to mention here that the client might be able to gain some performance efficiencies by pipelining commands, but that pipelining doesn't change the protocol's basic ping-pong operating mode." The core protocol is and remains a command-response protocol, though TCP (and maybe some other transports) have built-in features that would allow a client to send more than one command before the first has been completed. SMTP, for example, can work the same way: the client can buffer and send multiple commands, anticipating that each will be performed correctly, but the basic protocol is still command-response. The <status> command can't return any information for a command that hasn't been completed. Nothing has changed about that. -Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Castillo Cortazar [mailto:castillo@nic.mx] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:00 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes > > > > Hi everybody, I have a few questions about this changes > proposed by Scott > that could be interesting > > >- All text describing "asynchronous" operation needs to be > removed/reworded. > >Instead, text describing the protocol's operating mode as > "client-initiated > >command, server response" needs to be reinforced. Without > this change we'd > >need to define our own "congestion control/ack" service to > handle the loss > >of instances that may be queued in the application > queue-space (as when a > >server goes down). > > So, the "synchronous" operation mode is going to be mandatory ? > > How is the command-response operating mode going to be reinforced ? > - Is it that the client cannot send a command until he gets > the response to > the previous one ? > - In other words: What happens if a client issues a command, > before he gets > a response to a previous one ? > - Which response could he get if he issues a <status> for a > command, and > that command is not yet completed? > > I think this could be somehow linked to the <status> command and the > server's caching responsabilities. > > Any comments ? > > Greetings. > > > Roger Castillo Cortazar > NIC-Mexico http://www.nic.mx > Top Level Domain .MX > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6N1xwo2004296 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:59:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6N1xw8f004295 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:59:58 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.nic.mx (mail.nic.mx [200.23.1.17] (may be forged)) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6N1xuo2004290 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:59:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: from RCASTILLO.nic.mx ([200.33.1.101]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by mail.nic.mx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6N1x0B03103 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:59:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020722190720.02d96d98@mail.nic.mx> X-Sender: castillo@mail.nic.mx X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:59:51 -0500 To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> From: Roger Castillo Cortazar <castillo@nic.mx> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes In-Reply-To: <001001c22ddc$d112f210$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, I have a few questions about this changes proposed by Scott that could be interesting >- All text describing "asynchronous" operation needs to be removed/reworded. >Instead, text describing the protocol's operating mode as "client-initiated >command, server response" needs to be reinforced. Without this change we'd >need to define our own "congestion control/ack" service to handle the loss >of instances that may be queued in the application queue-space (as when a >server goes down). So, the "synchronous" operation mode is going to be mandatory ? How is the command-response operating mode going to be reinforced ? - Is it that the client cannot send a command until he gets the response to the previous one ? - In other words: What happens if a client issues a command, before he gets a response to a previous one ? - Which response could he get if he issues a <status> for a command, and that command is not yet completed? I think this could be somehow linked to the <status> command and the server's caching responsabilities. Any comments ? Greetings. Roger Castillo Cortazar NIC-Mexico http://www.nic.mx Top Level Domain .MX Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MM9to2002369 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:09:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MM9twe002368 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:09:55 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MM9so2002363 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:09:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07137 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVGH9BY>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD601E2C30A@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Subject: RE: Service Message Format Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:09:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I further discussed this issue with Scott, and I don't see an issue with allowing for mixed XML in the <msg> element. This allows for the current behavior of the use of plain text messages, does not require a new extension mechanism, and provides additional flexibility in the poll messages. This assumes that the <msg> element contains well-formed XML that is not validated. Jim > ---------- > From: Gould, James > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:39 PM > To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; Hollenbeck, Scott > Subject: RE: Service Message Format > > Scott, > > I believe the <msg> element is fine the way it is, since it is contained > within an EPP response which is already extensible (i.e. <transfer> query > response for transfer messages). The <msg> element provides the > contextual > information related to the message, which can be plain text, and the type > of > response contains the data. By making the <msg> a holder for message > specific content, it would duplicate the use of the EPP response > extensions. > > > Jim > > > ---------- > > From: Hollenbeck, Scott > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:08 PM > > To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' > > Subject: Service Message Format > > > > Something Hong mentioned in one of his recent notes got me thinking > about > > service messages (the kind that can be retrieved using the <poll> > command) > > and how their format is currently (un)specified. The current specs use > > the > > XML Schema "normalizedString" type for the <msg> element; this allows > for > > text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might > find > > it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible > > for > > a server operator to define parsable message structures. > > > > -Scott- > > > > > > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MKfJo2001836 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:41:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MKfJ6R001835 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:41:19 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MKfHo2001830 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:41:18 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6MKfGD01492 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:41:16 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V416V>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:42:03 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084098@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:42:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g6MKfIo2001831 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrik, Rick Wesson has suggested that I reword my response to you to clarify the issue. So here is my second try. This time, I will use an example to make it more concrete. Suppose the registry policy requires that every name registered go over a formal review before the request for registration is granted. So here is the typical flow of client (C, registrar) and server (S, registry) interactions, in the context of the four steps you outlined: (1) C sends a <create> command to the server, requesting for a name X. (2) S accepts X, changes its status to "pendingVerification", and sends a response back to C indicating command success. At this point, X is not registered, but is reserved so that no one else can take it while it is under review. (3) The registry completes the review and grants the registration. S removes the "pendingVerification" status and puts a notification into the message queue. (4) C polls and gets the notification from S that registration for X has been approved. What I meant by pending operation (or delayed operation in your word) is that at step (2), the response from S merely says that the request for registering X by C is received and the review process has started. The decision on whether the request will be eventually granted is pending for further review. So from EPP perspective, the command-response transaction may be regarded as completed by the end of step (2). However, from operations perspective, neither C nor S considers that the request for registering X is completed. I think that is where the misunderstanding kicks in. I hope this example explains what I meant by "pending operation". And I hope that you would not object to allowing EPP to do things like this. Of course, I am open to using any term that helps to avoid the confusion. What Scott and I were discussing is about ways to format the notification in step (3). Scott has already started another thread on this issue [1]... --Hong [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-07/msg00038.html -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:32 AM To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations --On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer > to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not > call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information > once the pending operation is completed. This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution". I.e.: (1) Client send a command to server (2) Server respond that it has received command (3) Server execute the command (4) Client fetches the result code This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do. If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and (b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is not possible with what you have on the table today. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MIKVo2000869 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:20:31 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MIKV8E000868 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:20:31 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from neteka.com (host-111.innovation.t1.primus.ca [216.254.145.111] (may be forged)) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g6MIKUo2000863 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:20:30 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <021a01c231ac$7157f180$0f01a8c0@neteka.inc> From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC8A@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Subject: Re: Service Message Format Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:20:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I think "allow" but not "force" would be good. Edmon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:08 PM Subject: Service Message Format > Something Hong mentioned in one of his recent notes got me thinking about > service messages (the kind that can be retrieved using the <poll> command) > and how their format is currently (un)specified. The current specs use the > XML Schema "normalizedString" type for the <msg> element; this allows for > text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might find > it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible for > a server operator to define parsable message structures. > > -Scott- > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHhUo2000573 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:43:30 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MHhUPj000572 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:43:30 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHhSo2000567 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:43:29 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6MHhPD29002 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:43:25 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQ4KT7>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:43:24 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084091@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: Service Message Format Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:44:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I think this is in the right direction to resolving the notification problem. I am for it. Thanks! --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:08 PM To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: Service Message Format Something Hong mentioned in one of his recent notes got me thinking about service messages (the kind that can be retrieved using the <poll> command) and how their format is currently (un)specified. The current specs use the XML Schema "normalizedString" type for the <msg> element; this allows for text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might find it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible for a server operator to define parsable message structures. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHdQo2000524 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:39:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MHdQk3000523 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:39:26 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHdPo2000518 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:39:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19804 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WR994P>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:39:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD601E2C305@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Subject: RE: Service Message Format Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:39:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I believe the <msg> element is fine the way it is, since it is contained within an EPP response which is already extensible (i.e. <transfer> query response for transfer messages). The <msg> element provides the contextual information related to the message, which can be plain text, and the type of response contains the data. By making the <msg> a holder for message specific content, it would duplicate the use of the EPP response extensions. Jim > ---------- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:08 PM > To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' > Subject: Service Message Format > > Something Hong mentioned in one of his recent notes got me thinking about > service messages (the kind that can be retrieved using the <poll> command) > and how their format is currently (un)specified. The current specs use > the > XML Schema "normalizedString" type for the <msg> element; this allows for > text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might find > it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible > for > a server operator to define parsable message structures. > > -Scott- > > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHZ8o2000464 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:35:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MHZ8Ii000463 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:35:08 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bean.ar.com (bean.ar.com [66.123.187.68]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHZ6o2000458 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:35:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: from flash.ar.com (wessorh@flash [66.123.187.80]) by bean.ar.com (8.12.2/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g6MHZ2lo009014; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:35:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Re: Service Message Format In-Reply-To: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC8A@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207221034390.25245-100000@flash.ar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk agreed, allow xml in the <msg> element. -rick On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Something Hong mentioned in one of his recent notes got me thinking about > service messages (the kind that can be retrieved using the <poll> command) > and how their format is currently (un)specified. The current specs use the > XML Schema "normalizedString" type for the <msg> element; this allows for > text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might find > it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible for > a server operator to define parsable message structures. > > -Scott- > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHUdo2000399 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:30:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MHUdRD000398 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:30:39 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from nohope.patoche.org (nohope.patoche.org [80.67.173.199]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MHUbo2000393 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:30:38 +0200 (MEST) Received: from nohope.patoche.org (localhost.gandi.net [127.0.0.1]) by nohope.patoche.org (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with ESMTP id g6MHUVT8029880 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:30:31 +0200 Received: (from patrick@localhost) by nohope.patoche.org (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) id g6MHUV8d029878 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:30:31 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:30:31 +0200 From: Patrick <patrick@gandi.net> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Re: Service Message Format Message-ID: <20020722173031.GO740@nohope.patoche.org> References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC8A@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC8A@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-PGP-KeyID: A241FB6B X-Request-PGP: http://www.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xA241FB6B Organization: Gandi Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:08:29PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott took time to write: > text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might find > it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible for > a server operator to define parsable message structures. If we really want to be extensible, I think we should not force non-XML strings in poll messages, thus we should make everything possible so that XML strings in poll messages will work. I do not think that this makes big changes, so I am for this idea. Patrick. Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MH8ao2000264 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:08:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MH8ao4000262 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:08:36 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MH8Zo2000257 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:08:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17864 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WR99B1>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:08:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC8A@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Service Message Format Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:08:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Something Hong mentioned in one of his recent notes got me thinking about service messages (the kind that can be retrieved using the <poll> command) and how their format is currently (un)specified. The current specs use the XML Schema "normalizedString" type for the <msg> element; this allows for text messages, but no additional XML. I was wondering if folks might find it useful to allow XML in the <msg> element so that it would be possible for a server operator to define parsable message structures. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MEeKo2029214 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:40:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6MEeKhg029213 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:40:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6MEeFo2029208 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:40:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6MEeBD24073 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:40:12 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V41G6>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:40:57 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084087@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:41:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g6MEeKo2029209 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrik, Thanks for the clarification. At least we have consensus on the definition, -:) I initially thought that Scott and I were discussing means to achieving this. But now you are suggesting that EPP shoud not support such operations. I want to know why. Now I think we have a big issue at hand if this capability is striped out of the protocol at the last minute. This is not what I want to do, this is what the reality of registry operations calls for. There are many cases where instant execution of a requested operation on a server object is not possible. This is particularly true for sponsored TLDs and/or ccTLDs where registry policy requires that an operation be authorized before execution. Take .au and .kids.us for example. There are also cases for advanced services offered by unsponsored registries that need this capability. Please tell me what I have available to accommodate these use cases? I don't buy the idea that this has to be done outside of EPP since this is a generic scenario. In addition, even for out-of-hand solutions, the response from the server, step (2) in your definition, still does not mean the completion of the command. So we are back to square zero. --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:32 AM To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations --On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer > to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not > call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information > once the pending operation is completed. This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution". I.e.: (1) Client send a command to server (2) Server respond that it has received command (3) Server execute the command (4) Client fetches the result code This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do. If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and (b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is not possible with what you have on the table today. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6M5XCo2027203 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:33:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6M5XCW8027202 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:33:12 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.60]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6M5XBo2027197 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:33:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: from xbe-lon-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6M5WKiN007923; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:32:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-lon-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Mon, 22 Jul 2002 06:33:09 +0100 Received: from [172.16.0.100] ([171.68.225.134]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:33:08 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:32:18 +0900 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@cisco.com> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Message-ID: <3118280.1027348338@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084075@STNTEXCH1> References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084075@STNTEXCH1> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2002 05:33:09.0173 (UTC) FILETIME=[434FBE50:01C23141] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk --On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer > to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not > call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information > once the pending operation is completed. This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution". I.e.: (1) Client send a command to server (2) Server respond that it has received command (3) Server execute the command (4) Client fetches the result code This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do. If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and (b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is not possible with what you have on the table today. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6JE2Ao2011523 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:02:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6JE2AdW011522 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:02:10 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6JE26o2011517 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:02:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6JE25D20500 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:02:05 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4C42>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:02:50 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08407E@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Multiple Extension Elements for Command/Response in EPP Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:03:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Thanks for the explanation. That will work for me, -:) --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:48 PM To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: Multiple Extension Elements for Command/Response in EPP Hong, I don't think what you're asking for is needed because the current syntax permits multiple extensions within a single <extension> element. Here's the types involved: <complexType name="commandType"> <sequence> ... <element name="extension" type="epp:extAnyType" minOccurs="0"/> ... </sequence> </complexType> <complexType name="extAnyType"> <sequence> <any namespace="##other" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </sequence> </complexType> See the 'maxOccurs="unbounded"' attribute in the definition of extAnyType? -Scott- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:24 PM Subject: Multiple Extension Elements for Command/Response in EPP > Scott, > > I would like to request a small change in epp-1.0.xsd to allow multiple > <extension> elements at the command and response level. Specifically, the > changes are: > > (1) On page 56 of EPP-06 under the <commandType> definition, add attribute > "maxOccurs=unbounded" to the <extension> element. > (2) On page 59 of EPP-06 under the <responseType> definition, add attribute > "maxOccurs=unbounded" to the <extension> element. > > This change is based on the experiences gained through our recent EPP > extension work (usTLD, EPP PUSH, etc...). At present, at most one > <extension> is allowed. If I have two independent extensions for an object > type, say domain, then I cannot list them independently in the command and > response. Allowing multiple <extension> elements can solve the problem. > > Thanks! > > --Hong > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6JAIno2010683 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:18:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6JAInW8010682 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:18:49 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6JAIio2010676 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:18:45 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA00747; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVGFDCA>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:18:37 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BC70@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:18:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > So the correct use of <status> command, under the proposed > change, is to > find out whether the previous client command has been > successfully processed > by the server. This does not mean that the operation requested in the > command has been completed by the server. What I need is a > notification > mechanism in EPP for the latter. Hong, As I said earlier, that mechanism is already present in the protocol: change the status when completed, and notify the client by putting a message in the queue for retrieval via the <poll> command. The format of the notification depends on what you want to say, just as the format of every other service message is something to be defined by the server operator. You might use the client and server transaction IDs to identify the completed command in you service message. Hong, I don't know what's unclear about this. To satisfy Patrik's question, we're not (thankfully) talking about a delayed response and I'm now sure that you haven't suggested that kind of operating mode -- we're talking about an operation that might require third-party (maybe an offline person) action before the requested action can be completed. The protocol already includes features to deal with this: object status can be determined using the <info> command, and the server can let the client know when the offline action has been completed using a polled message. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6J2Yeo2009066 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:34:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6J2YeKg009065 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:34:40 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6J2Ydo2009060 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:34:39 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6J2YcD14778 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 02:34:38 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4CKV>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:35:23 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084075@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:35:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g6J2Yeo2009061 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Patrik, I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information once the pending operation is completed. So the correct use of <status> command, under the proposed change, is to find out whether the previous client command has been successfully processed by the server. This does not mean that the operation requested in the command has been completed by the server. What I need is a notification mechanism in EPP for the latter. --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:48 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations --On 2002-07-18 19.25 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pending operation". Given > that all commands are supposed to receive a response immediately after > being received and processed, there should never be a situation where a > command is sent and it takes "a long time" before the server sends back a > response, so I hope that's not what you're asking about. I explicitly want to know whether this wg _really_ want to have what I would call "delayed execution" or not. I heard from Scott and the wg chairs when we had lunch that the wg has not wanted delayed execution. I am even prepared saying that I don't see any need for either delayed execution or pipelining in the protocol. It makes the protocol MUCH more difficult. The current protocol do not handle either delayed execution or pipelining, so if you want either of these things, you really have to go back to the drawing board. Scott and wg chairs told me the wg have not expressed interest in those "features", and that the wording which is used today is possibly there because of misunderstanding whether words are needed in the core protocol or the protocol binding. This I think is much better if the changes Scott propose are applied. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6J2Rpo2009031 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:27:51 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6J2RoS0009030 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:27:50 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6J2Rio2009024 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:27:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6J2RfD14655 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 02:27:41 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4CKT>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:28:26 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084074@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:28:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Thanks for the explanation. I should have mentioned in the beginning about what I meant by "pending operation". So here is the definition: "A pending operation refers to a server operation requested by a client command whose execution is pending at the time the server issues the response to the command." As such, the server dose NOT hold off the response to the command. In fact, it replies with result code "Command completed successfully; action pending" as you suggested in [i]. You put it quite correctly then that a response to a command by the server only signals that the command has been processed successfully. It does not necessarily mean that the operation requested in the command has been executed prior to the server's response (although in many cases it does). So support of pending operations does not in itself breaks the tightly coupled command-response model of EPP. So yes, I was referring to the back-end processing that requires time to complete. The most obvious one is transfer, and it has been taken care of in EPP through special treatment. However, there are other use cases. Pending update was the one I used as an example [ii] and you and Bruce also gave example for "pending create" [i][iii]. I hope we can agree that these are also valid use cases for EPP. What I am looking for is a way to notify the client when the pending operation is completed. Be it poll or push, we need something to put into the message queue to indicate whether the pending operation is successful or failed. <transfer> is treated specially in EPP so it is OK. Could you please expand on how other pending operations may be supported by the message queue and the <poll>? What message content shall we use and how do we identify the pending operation in the message? I just need a solution to this problem. Maybe an example, say for a pending create, would be very helpful. I might have misunderstood a private email you and I exchanged regarding using the <status> command. I will send it again to you in private. Thanks! --Hong [i] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-02/msg00038.html [ii] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-02/msg00035.html [iii] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-03/msg00000.html -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:26 PM To: Liu, Hong; ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Hong, You read my description of the change to <status> correctly. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pending operation". Given that all commands are supposed to receive a response immediately after being received and processed, there should never be a situation where a command is sent and it takes "a long time" before the server sends back a response, so I hope that's not what you're asking about. <HL This is not what I meant. /> If you're talking about commands like <transfer> where some back-end processing is required before the command can be completed, we already have mechanisms in place to check on the status of the command. Transfer, for example, has a query command. We already have a mechanism in place for the server to notify clients when such operations are completed. That's what message queuing and the <poll> command are for. Your original suggestion was target more towards updates, though. I don't recall there being unanimous support for the changes suggested in the message you referenced, though I agreed to pass them to the IESG as part of he last call (I did, and there's been no reaction). Looking at the archives, one person said "OK" and one objected. I also didn't say anything about use of <status> for this purpose in my response [1]. I can't see how it can be used as all it does is confirm that a command has been received -- it doesn't tell you if policy-driven back-end processing has been completed. Anyway, I'm OK with the changes you suggested in March as long as no one objects. The change to the <status> command doesn't impact this change at all as the "pending" status can be determined using an <info> command. -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-03/msg00008.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:45 PM Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations > Scott, > > I do have a concern about the proposed change for the use of <status> > command that I hope you will address. > > Do you imply that <status> command can now only be used for checking the > last unacknowledged command from the client? If so, what mechansim is > available for the client to check the status of a pending operation [a]? I > recall in that discussion, you suggested that the <status> command be used > for that purpose. I assume that you will incorporate the changes suggested > in [a] to the final EPP documents. > > I have no objection to the change as long as there is an alternative for the > server to notify the client about the completion of a pending operation. May > I suggest that we add two new result codes: "Pending operation successful" > and "Pending operation failed" for that purpose? > > Another related issue is how the server identify the pending operation. > Since with the proposed change, the server only caches the client > transaction identifier for the last command processed, it will not have it > available when it completes the pending operation (presumably after many > other commands processed in between). Should the server transaction ID be > used instead? > > I hope that I won't be penalized for speaking up, -:) > > Thanks! > > --Hong > > [a] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-03/msg00006.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:57 PM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: Proposed Document Changes > > > [snip...] > > - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the > server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be > responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus > if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command > before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> > processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the > protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to > make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the > server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". > > [snip...] > > If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! > > -Scott- > > [1] > http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6INoso2007451 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6INorC6007450 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:53 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.60]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6INoro2007445 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:53 +0200 (MEST) Received: from xbe-ams-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6INnxI8006340; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-302.cisco.com ([144.254.75.89]) by xbe-ams-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:47 +0200 Received: from zx81.paf.se.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:47 +0200 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:47:53 +0900 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@cisco.com> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Message-ID: <6438038.1027068473@localhost> In-Reply-To: <002901c22eb2$6ae16d10$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084073@STNTEXCH1> <002901c22eb2$6ae16d10$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2002 23:50:47.0507 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0490230:01C22EB5] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk --On 2002-07-18 19.25 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pending operation". Given > that all commands are supposed to receive a response immediately after > being received and processed, there should never be a situation where a > command is sent and it takes "a long time" before the server sends back a > response, so I hope that's not what you're asking about. I explicitly want to know whether this wg _really_ want to have what I would call "delayed execution" or not. I heard from Scott and the wg chairs when we had lunch that the wg has not wanted delayed execution. I am even prepared saying that I don't see any need for either delayed execution or pipelining in the protocol. It makes the protocol MUCH more difficult. The current protocol do not handle either delayed execution or pipelining, so if you want either of these things, you really have to go back to the drawing board. Scott and wg chairs told me the wg have not expressed interest in those "features", and that the wording which is used today is possibly there because of misunderstanding whether words are needed in the core protocol or the protocol binding. This I think is much better if the changes Scott propose are applied. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6INQ1o2007327 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:26:01 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6INQ1S7007326 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:26:01 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (www.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.192.80]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6INPwo2007321 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:25:59 +0200 (MEST) Received: from HOLLENBECKLT2 (HOLLENBECK-LT2.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.72.250]) by mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6INPYJ01862; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:25:34 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <002901c22eb2$6ae16d10$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084073@STNTEXCH1> Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:25:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong, You read my description of the change to <status> correctly. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pending operation". Given that all commands are supposed to receive a response immediately after being received and processed, there should never be a situation where a command is sent and it takes "a long time" before the server sends back a response, so I hope that's not what you're asking about. If you're talking about commands like <transfer> where some back-end processing is required before the command can be completed, we already have mechanisms in place to check on the status of the command. Transfer, for example, has a query command. We already have a mechanism in place for the server to notify clients when such operations are completed. That's what message queuing and the <poll> command are for. Your original suggestion was target more towards updates, though. I don't recall there being unanimous support for the changes suggested in the message you referenced, though I agreed to pass them to the IESG as part of he last call (I did, and there's been no reaction). Looking at the archives, one person said "OK" and one objected. I also didn't say anything about use of <status> for this purpose in my response [1]. I can't see how it can be used as all it does is confirm that a command has been received -- it doesn't tell you if policy-driven back-end processing has been completed. Anyway, I'm OK with the changes you suggested in March as long as no one objects. The change to the <status> command doesn't impact this change at all as the "pending" status can be determined using an <info> command. -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-03/msg00008.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:45 PM Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations > Scott, > > I do have a concern about the proposed change for the use of <status> > command that I hope you will address. > > Do you imply that <status> command can now only be used for checking the > last unacknowledged command from the client? If so, what mechansim is > available for the client to check the status of a pending operation [a]? I > recall in that discussion, you suggested that the <status> command be used > for that purpose. I assume that you will incorporate the changes suggested > in [a] to the final EPP documents. > > I have no objection to the change as long as there is an alternative for the > server to notify the client about the completion of a pending operation. May > I suggest that we add two new result codes: "Pending operation successful" > and "Pending operation failed" for that purpose? > > Another related issue is how the server identify the pending operation. > Since with the proposed change, the server only caches the client > transaction identifier for the last command processed, it will not have it > available when it completes the pending operation (presumably after many > other commands processed in between). Should the server transaction ID be > used instead? > > I hope that I won't be penalized for speaking up, -:) > > Thanks! > > --Hong > > [a] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-03/msg00006.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:57 PM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: Proposed Document Changes > > > [snip...] > > - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the > server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be > responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus > if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command > before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> > processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the > protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to > make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the > server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". > > [snip...] > > If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! > > -Scott- > > [1] > http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6IMm5o2007152 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:48:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6IMm5ag007151 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:48:05 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (www.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.192.80]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6IMm2o2007146 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:48:03 +0200 (MEST) Received: from HOLLENBECKLT2 (HOLLENBECK-LT2.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.72.250]) by mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6IMlgJ01786; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:47:42 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <000f01c22ead$204e7db0$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084070@STNTEXCH1> Subject: Re: Multiple Extension Elements for Command/Response in EPP Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:47:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong, I don't think what you're asking for is needed because the current syntax permits multiple extensions within a single <extension> element. Here's the types involved: <complexType name="commandType"> <sequence> ... <element name="extension" type="epp:extAnyType" minOccurs="0"/> ... </sequence> </complexType> <complexType name="extAnyType"> <sequence> <any namespace="##other" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </sequence> </complexType> See the 'maxOccurs="unbounded"' attribute in the definition of extAnyType? -Scott- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:24 PM Subject: Multiple Extension Elements for Command/Response in EPP > Scott, > > I would like to request a small change in epp-1.0.xsd to allow multiple > <extension> elements at the command and response level. Specifically, the > changes are: > > (1) On page 56 of EPP-06 under the <commandType> definition, add attribute > "maxOccurs=unbounded" to the <extension> element. > (2) On page 59 of EPP-06 under the <responseType> definition, add attribute > "maxOccurs=unbounded" to the <extension> element. > > This change is based on the experiences gained through our recent EPP > extension work (usTLD, EPP PUSH, etc...). At present, at most one > <extension> is allowed. If I have two independent extensions for an object > type, say domain, then I cannot list them independently in the command and > response. Allowing multiple <extension> elements can solve the problem. > > Thanks! > > --Hong > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6IMj7o2007136 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:45:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6IMj7nL007135 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:45:07 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6IMj3o2007130 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:45:06 +0200 (MEST) Received: from stntimc1.va.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6IMj2D12782 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:45:02 GMT Received: by STNTIMC1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <306V4CHR>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:45:48 -0400 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084073@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:45:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I do have a concern about the proposed change for the use of <status> command that I hope you will address. Do you imply that <status> command can now only be used for checking the last unacknowledged command from the client? If so, what mechansim is available for the client to check the status of a pending operation [a]? I recall in that discussion, you suggested that the <status> command be used for that purpose. I assume that you will incorporate the changes suggested in [a] to the final EPP documents. I have no objection to the change as long as there is an alternative for the server to notify the client about the completion of a pending operation. May I suggest that we add two new result codes: "Pending operation successful" and "Pending operation failed" for that purpose? Another related issue is how the server identify the pending operation. Since with the proposed change, the server only caches the client transaction identifier for the last command processed, it will not have it available when it completes the pending operation (presumably after many other commands processed in between). Should the server transaction ID be used instead? I hope that I won't be penalized for speaking up, -:) Thanks! --Hong [a] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-03/msg00006.html -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:57 PM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Proposed Document Changes [snip...] - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". [snip...] If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6ILNQo2006718 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:23:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6ILNQsP006717 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:23:26 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from willow.neustar.com (willow.neustar.com [209.173.53.84]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6ILNMo2006712 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:23:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650a-eth-s1p2c0.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.81]) by willow.neustar.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6ILNJD11550 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:23:19 GMT Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <30KQT6T3>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:23:15 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084070@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Multiple Extension Elements for Command/Response in EPP Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:24:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, I would like to request a small change in epp-1.0.xsd to allow multiple <extension> elements at the command and response level. Specifically, the changes are: (1) On page 56 of EPP-06 under the <commandType> definition, add attribute "maxOccurs=unbounded" to the <extension> element. (2) On page 59 of EPP-06 under the <responseType> definition, add attribute "maxOccurs=unbounded" to the <extension> element. This change is based on the experiences gained through our recent EPP extension work (usTLD, EPP PUSH, etc...). At present, at most one <extension> is allowed. If I have two independent extensions for an object type, say domain, then I cannot list them independently in the command and response. Allowing multiple <extension> elements can solve the problem. Thanks! --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6I0jVo2000500 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:45:31 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6I0jVhp000499 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:45:31 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (bartok.sidn.nl [193.176.144.164]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6I0jUo2000494 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:45:30 +0200 (MEST) Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (localhost.sidn.nl [IPv6:::1]) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6I0jN5d077418 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:45:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.sidn.nl) Received: (from jaap@localhost) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6I0jNrD077417 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:45:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (www.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.192.80]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HLuho2029632 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:56:44 +0200 (MEST) Received: from HOLLENBECKLT2 (HOLLENBECK-LT2.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.72.250]) by mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6HLuXu15885 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:56:33 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <001001c22ddc$d112f210$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Proposed Document Changes Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:56:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk While in Yokohama Ed, Jaap, Patrik, and I had a chance to talk through the questions and answers [1] that we need to resolve before Patrik would feel comfortable taking the provreg protocol documents to the IESG. Here's a summary of the changes that we think need to be made before the IESG will approve the documents: The core (epp-06) document: - All text describing "asynchronous" operation needs to be removed/reworded. Instead, text describing the protocol's operating mode as "client-initiated command, server response" needs to be reinforced. Without this change we'd need to define our own "congestion control/ack" service to handle the loss of instances that may be queued in the application queue-space (as when a server goes down). - Some ASCII art illustrating this operating mode should be added for clarity. - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". - Fixing the authInfo data structure to make it extensible such that new authInfo mechanisms can be added in the future without having to change the core protocol document. The TCP transport (tcp-04) document: - Add some ASCII art describing the state machine for the protocol when carried over TCP. - Eliminate/reword all of the text describing "asynchronous" operation. Instead, it's OK to mention here that the client might be able to gain some performance efficiencies by pipelining commands, but that pipelining doesn't change the protocol's basic ping-pong operating mode. - Explicitly note that the length field in the header is in network byte order. I've also captured several editorial comments since we completed last call, and I'll get those in as well. If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HNoKo2000228 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:50:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6HNoKc7000227 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:50:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from insan.co.id (mx.insan.co.id [202.138.225.178]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HNoFo2000222 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:50:17 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insan.co.id (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194831499B for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:50:27 +0700 (JAVT) Received: from greymon (bojong.indocisc.com [202.138.228.8]) by insan.co.id (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74FF14987 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:50:25 +0700 (JAVT) From: budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:50:16 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: (Fwd) .ID - plan to open zone transfer Reply-To: budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com Message-ID: <3D366528.6221.53398E@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Sorry, a little out of topic. I thought since this list has many respected people, then I should cross post my email. Sorry for any inconveniences. -- budi ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com To: cctld-discuss@wwtld.org Date sent: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:46:26 +0700 Subject: .ID - plan to open zone transfer Priority: normal Folks, internally we (.ID ) is planning to open zone transfer to various parties, including gTLD registrars. No firm deadline/timeline is scheduled though. We are looking for comments/suggestions/best practices from other ccTLDs. - is there any value in this? - things that we should watch for? - what can we get from gTLD registrars? - should we jump into "new" protocols & techniques (eg. EPP and the like or should we stick with conventional methods?) - agreement template? - general comments? [Note: To those who asked us about ICANN. Yes, we allow zone transfer to ICANN. Why shouldn't we?] Also, we are looking for secondaries (will be part of glue record) for .ID and second level domains under .ID. Suggestions to increase our reliability is welcome. Regards -- budi ------- End of forwarded message ------- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HNALo2029915 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:10:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6HNALdo029914 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:10:21 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from naptop.autonomica.net (naptop.autonomica.net [133.93.72.248]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HNAIo2029909 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:10:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from naptop.autonomica.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by naptop.autonomica.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HNA4tP001626 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:10:04 +0900 (JST) Received: (from liman@localhost) by naptop.autonomica.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6HNA4oI001625 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:10:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (www.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.192.80]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6HLuho2029632 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:56:44 +0200 (MEST) Received: from HOLLENBECKLT2 (HOLLENBECK-LT2.dyn.ietf54.wide.ad.jp [133.93.72.250]) by mail.ietf54.wide.ad.jp (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6HLuXu15885 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:56:33 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <001001c22ddc$d112f210$fa485d85@HOLLENBECKLT2> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: Proposed Document Changes Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:56:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk While in Yokohama Ed, Jaap, Patrik, and I had a chance to talk through the questions and answers [1] that we need to resolve before Patrik would feel comfortable taking the provreg protocol documents to the IESG. Here's a summary of the changes that we think need to be made before the IESG will approve the documents: The core (epp-06) document: - All text describing "asynchronous" operation needs to be removed/reworded. Instead, text describing the protocol's operating mode as "client-initiated command, server response" needs to be reinforced. Without this change we'd need to define our own "congestion control/ack" service to handle the loss of instances that may be queued in the application queue-space (as when a server goes down). - Some ASCII art illustrating this operating mode should be added for clarity. - The description of the <status> command should be changed to describe the server's caching responsibilities. We agreed that the server should only be responsible for caching the identifier for the last command processed, thus if a response isn't received the client should send a <status> command before sending any subsequent commands. This should make <status> processing a lot easier for the server, and it's consistent with the protocol's command-response operating mode. It might also make sense to make the client transaction identifier mandatory instead of optional if the server doesn't have to cache identifiers for "a long time". - Fixing the authInfo data structure to make it extensible such that new authInfo mechanisms can be added in the future without having to change the core protocol document. The TCP transport (tcp-04) document: - Add some ASCII art describing the state machine for the protocol when carried over TCP. - Eliminate/reword all of the text describing "asynchronous" operation. Instead, it's OK to mention here that the client might be able to gain some performance efficiencies by pipelining commands, but that pipelining doesn't change the protocol's basic ping-pong operating mode. - Explicitly note that the length field in the header is in network byte order. I've also captured several editorial comments since we completed last call, and I'll get those in as well. If anyone has any issues or concerns with the above, speak up! -Scott- [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-06/msg00015.html Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68H0Uo2014680 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:00:30 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g68H0Usf014679 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:00:30 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ns01.afilias.info (ns01.afilias.info [66.45.25.225]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68H0To2014674 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:00:29 +0200 (MEST) Received: from RAMLAPTOP (ATHM-216-217-xxx-252.newedgenetworks.com [216.217.55.252]) (authenticated) by ns01.afilias.info (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g68H0CY18140; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:00:12 -0400 Message-ID: <018c01c226a0$524c9a50$1802a8c0@afilias.com> From: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info> To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BBFA@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> Subject: Re: EPP PUSH: Session Property Re-negotiation Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:40:15 -0400 Organization: Afilias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk scott, i agree- i don't see a compelling reason to change basic session negotiation features and requirements. -ram ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:07 AM Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Property Re-negotiation > > I would like to know how people on the list feel about it: is > > it desirable > > to allow session property re-negotiation after the session is set up? > > I think it best to deal with renegotiation only by ending a session and > starting a new one. It keeps things simpler and consistent with other > session negotiation features. > > -Scott- > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68EHvo2013545 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:17:57 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g68EHv7A013544 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:17:57 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from pine.neustar.com (pine.neustar.com [209.173.57.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68EHuo2013539 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:17:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (chih650b-eth-s4p2c0.il.neustar.com [209.173.57.65]) by pine.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g68EHK501562 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:17:46 -0500 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKHM2Z>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:17:06 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084021@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Property Re-negotiation Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:15:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I agree with you on this issue, too. In the case of TCP, since the server cannot initiate a new session, if it does not have other push-enabled sessions after terminating the current one, it has to wait for the client to establish a new session (an negotiate it as push-enabled) before it can push data again to the client. -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:07 AM To: 'Liu, Hong'; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Property Re-negotiation > I would like to know how people on the list feel about it: is > it desirable > to allow session property re-negotiation after the session is set up? I think it best to deal with renegotiation only by ending a session and starting a new one. It keeps things simpler and consistent with other session negotiation features. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68EEKo2013499 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:14:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g68EEK9n013498 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:14:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from pine.neustar.com (pine.neustar.com [209.173.57.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68EEIo2013493 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:14:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (chih650b-eth-s4p2c0.il.neustar.com [209.173.57.65]) by pine.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g68EDr501495 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:14:08 -0500 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKHM2B>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:13:38 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084020@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Setup Semantics Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:12:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Scott, Thanks for the comment. I agree with you on this. The upcoming draft will take this approach, and also discuss the interactions between push and poll. Cheers, --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:06 AM To: 'Liu, Hong'; 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Setup Semantics > Suppose both the server and the client agree on supporting > EPP PUSH in this > session, there are two possible semantics: > a. Push-only semantics. The session can only be used for server-pushed > messages. The client cannot use <poll> in this session to > retrieve messages > from the server. > b. Mixed semantics. Both server-push and client-poll are allowed. > In both cases, I think it is reasonable to assume that other > EPP commands > and responses are allowed. > > Which semantics should we pick, (a) or (b)? > Is this a registry policy issue or a standardization issue? I believe that (b) is the proper approach. Polling is a "standard" protocol feature that you can't just eliminate, so I see it as a standardization (and thus interoperability) issue. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68DEho2012931 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:14:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g68DEhhJ012930 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:14:43 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68DEgo2012925 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:14:42 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA10055; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVF6LNN>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:14:39 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BBFB@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Roger Castillo Cortazar'" <castillo@nic.mx> Cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: <poll> result codes Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:14:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hmm, I think you're right -- the response code says that a message is dequeued with a request, but the text says it should only be dequeued with an ack. I think I need to fix that response text. I'll send this to the list so others can note the issue. When I next edit the EPP core doc, the text for the 1301 response code should be changed to something like this: "1301 "Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue message" This response code MUST be returned when responding to a <poll> request command and a message has been retrieved from the server message queue." Thanks for catching this! -Scott- -----Original Message----- From: Roger Castillo Cortazar [mailto:castillo@nic.mx] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 5:36 PM To: shollenbeck@verisign.com Subject: <poll> result codes Hi Scott. I was writing use-cases for our EPP implementation and I have a few comments about the <poll> command and the result codes. In the draft-ietf-provreg-epp-06.txt document we can read: 2.8.2.3 EPP <poll> Command ..........................................................After a message has been received by the client, the client MUST respond to the message with an explicit acknowledgement to confirm that the message has been received. A server MUST dequeue the message and decrement the queue counter after receiving acknowledgement from the client, making the next message in the queue (if any) available for retrieval. The message is dequeued just after receiving an acknowledgement from the client. I think the result codes for the "req" and "ack" options of the <poll> command server response examples are mixed, or inverted, although the message "count" attributes look good. Even the result code description looks a little confusing for me.. 1301 "Command completed successfully; message dequeued" This response code MUST be returned when responding to a <poll> request command and a message has been dequeued from the server message queue. The message is not dequeued when responding to a <poll> request, but when responding to a <poll> acknowledge command. You can take a look at the <poll> examples and the result codes definitions. Greetings, and I hope not being a bother. Roger Castillo Cortazar NIC-Mexico http://www.nic.mx Top Level Domain .MX Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68D7Zo2012878 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:07:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g68D7Zfj012877 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:07:35 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68D7Yo2012872 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:07:34 +0200 (MEST) Received: from VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw1.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.201]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA09616; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by VSVAPOSTALGW1.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJVF6L29>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:07:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BBFA@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Property Re-negotiation Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:07:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > I would like to know how people on the list feel about it: is > it desirable > to allow session property re-negotiation after the session is set up? I think it best to deal with renegotiation only by ending a session and starting a new one. It keeps things simpler and consistent with other session negotiation features. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68D6Fo2012858 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:06:15 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g68D6FZZ012857 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:06:15 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g68D6Eo2012852 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:06:14 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA09543; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.bkup1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <M6WRW68X>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:05:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BBF9@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: EPP PUSH: Session Setup Semantics Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:05:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk > Suppose both the server and the client agree on supporting > EPP PUSH in this > session, there are two possible semantics: > a. Push-only semantics. The session can only be used for server-pushed > messages. The client cannot use <poll> in this session to > retrieve messages > from the server. > b. Mixed semantics. Both server-push and client-poll are allowed. > In both cases, I think it is reasonable to assume that other > EPP commands > and responses are allowed. > > Which semantics should we pick, (a) or (b)? > Is this a registry policy issue or a standardization issue? I believe that (b) is the proper approach. Polling is a "standard" protocol feature that you can't just eliminate, so I see it as a standardization (and thus interoperability) issue. -Scott- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g65D7oo2025624 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:07:50 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g65D7o7j025623 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:07:50 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g65D7no2025618 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:07:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23132; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200207051306.JAA23132@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@isi.edu>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Document Action: Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements to Informational Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:06:56 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements' <draft-ietf-provreg-grrp-reqs-06.txt> as an Informational RFC. This document is the product of the Provisioning Registry Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom. Notes to RFC-Editor: [1] Please remove this paragraph in the Introduction at the time of publication: > This document is being discussed on the "ietf-provreg" mailing list. > To join the list, send a message to <majordomo@cafax.se> with the > words "subscribe ietf-provreg" in the body of the message. There is a > web site for the list archives at http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg. [2] Please remove Appendix A, Revisions From Previous Version, at the time of publication. Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g64C4bo2017931 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:04:37 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g64C4bmM017930 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:04:37 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from popintmanex.poptel.org.uk (popintmanex.poptel.org.uk [213.55.9.22]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g64C4Zo2017925 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:04:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: by exchange.poptel.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <31RG63SW>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:04:32 +0100 Message-ID: <F9151633A30CD4118C9D00062939A7F19A40DA@popintlonex.poptel.org.uk> From: Robert Burbidge <robert.burbidge@poptel.coop> To: "Ietf-Provreg (E-mail)" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: EPP Extensions proposal for coop: comments invited Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:04:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Poptel has published the first draft of its proposal for EPP extensions to support verification in the dot coop gTLD. They can be found on our web site at http://www.coop/registrar_docs.asp#epp. As experts that you are (!) I would be happy for you to review this document and pass on any feedback either directly to me, or via this list if you prefer. Documents are in Word and PDF formats. A few comments that I would like to make before you read the proposal. 1. It's not a formal proposal in the IETF style. Partly this is for reasons of time (I have not the time or inclination to master the format or style of RFC-type documents). At the moment it contains an outline of our business process, and examples EPP document interchange. 2. It does not include a formal XML schema for the extensions - this will happen, but I though it would be nice to get some general discussion first. 3 It is not a "general" specification for verification in all circumstances. For dot coop, potential registrants are verified to check that they represent valid co-operative bodies. However, we don't validate the domain names that they may register, apart obvious things like making sure they are end in ".coop", have not already been provisioned, and are not on a reserved names list. I'm aware that other registries have rather different needs that we don't try to address. Yours in anticipation Rob Burbidge Poptel Limited Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g639FQo2009224 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g639FQ44009223 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:26 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.60]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g639FQo2009218 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: from xbe-ams-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g639EWXk014522; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:14:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-ams-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:24 +0200 Received: from [10.0.1.2] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:21 +0200 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:13:06 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@cisco.com> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: TCP Mapping Message-ID: <29657431.1025694786@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084004@STNTEXCH1> References: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084004@STNTEXCH1> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2002 09:15:23.0778 (UTC) FILETIME=[2981BE20:01C22272] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk --On 2002-06-29 20.27 -0500 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote: > Most (if not all) EPP implementations today use TCP and will stay that way > for a long time. For this matter, we want to make PUSH work using TCP. It > is not a requirement, it is an extension with which we can use PUSH for > EPP over TCP. If Push is something that EPP needs, then it MUST be done in the EPP spec, and not in the transport binding. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g639FNo2009216 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g639FMfr009215 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:22 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.60]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g639FMo2009210 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from xbe-ams-303.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g639ES0l014480; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:14:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xfe-ams-301.cisco.com ([144.254.75.88]) by xbe-ams-303.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:21 +0200 Received: from [10.0.1.2] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:15:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:10:39 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@cisco.com> To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: Requirements Approved! Message-ID: <29648605.1025694639@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200206281710.g5SHAjBZ016119@nic-naa.net> References: <200206281710.g5SHAjBZ016119@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2002 09:15:20.0638 (UTC) FILETIME=[27A29DE0:01C22272] Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk --On 2002-06-28 13.10 -0400 Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote: > data mining at its best (rummaging in the iesg's drawers) > > its been a longish hump since what, pittsburg? One of the reasons is that many people have (externally) claimed they had ideas and comments, but at last I had to force a timeout on those groups of people. I.e. it is important that this document ends up being right, and that many people have a chance looking at it. More important than many other documents we produce. paf Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g638k4o2009091 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:46:04 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g638k403009090 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:46:04 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (bartok.sidn.nl [193.176.144.164]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g638k3o2009085 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:46:03 +0200 (MEST) Received: from bartok.sidn.nl (localhost.sidn.nl [127.0.0.1]) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g638juZk011304 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:45:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jaap@bartok.sidn.nl) Received: (from jaap@localhost) by bartok.sidn.nl (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g638jtg2011303 for ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:45:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.libertyrms.com ([216.94.172.167]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62Ciao2001976 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:44:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [10.1.1.139] (helo=dun220) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17PN1H-0002FJ-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:44:35 -0400 From: "Michael Young" <myoung@libertyrms.com> To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Juli=E1n_Mu=F1oz'?=" <jmunoz@softhome.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: EPP and # of nameservers Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:44:32 -0400 Message-ID: <000001c221c6$368df770$8b01010a@dun220> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207021001010.1927-100000@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g62Ciao2001977 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Saludos de Julián, The requirement for two nameservers really relates to best practises in respect of DNS related RFC's such as this excerpt from #1912. So I would say in a registry that its a policy decision based on separate considerations of EPP. Hope that helps. 2.8 Authority and Delegation Errors (NS records) You are required to have at least two nameservers for every domain, though more is preferred. Have secondaries outside your network. If the secondary isn't under your control, periodically check up on them and make sure they're getting current zone data from you. Queries to their nameserver about your hosts should always result in an "authoritative" response. If not, this is called a "lame delegation". A lame delegations exists when a nameserver is delegated responsibility for providing nameservice for a zone (via NS records) but is not performing nameservice for that zone (usually because it is not set up as a primary or secondary for the zone). Michael Young -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Julián Muñoz Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:07 AM To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: EPP and # of nameservers Hello, I would like to know if the EPP protocol forces 2 nameservers per domain name, or it won't work. Or it is really a decision of a registry to not allow only 1 nameserver. Thank you, -- Saludos de Julián -.- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62G7Ko2003315 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:07:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g62G7KmE003314 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:07:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from moutng1.kundenserver.de (moutng1.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62G7Jo2003309 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:07:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [195.20.224.148] (helo=mxintern.kundenserver.de) by moutng1.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17PQBN-0008WS-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:07:14 +0200 Received: from rocco.schlund.de ([172.17.0.162] helo=schlund.de) by mxintern.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 17PQBN-00076q-00; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:07:13 +0200 Message-ID: <3D21CFB3.FD38BA0B@schlund.de> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:07:15 +0200 From: Jens-Uwe Gaspar <jug@schlund.de> Organization: Schlund + Partner AG X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juli=E1n=20Mu=F1oz?= <jmunoz@softhome.net> CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: EPP and # of nameservers References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207021001010.1927-100000@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi, Julián Muñoz wrote: > > Hello, > > I would like to know if the EPP protocol forces 2 nameservers per domain > name, or it won't work. > > Or it is really a decision of a registry to not allow only 1 nameserver. It's registry-policy. Remember, if registry uses nameserver-objects, then there must be a possibility to attach glue-nameservers to a domain: NEW domain foo.info (without nameservers) NEW host ns1.foo.info NEW host ns2.foo.info UPD domain foo.info (attach ns1/ns2.foo.info) First step is needed, because you cannot create nameserver-objects, if the parent domain is not already existing. -- Kind regards, Jens-Uwe Gaspar ________________________________________________________________________ Jens-Uwe Gaspar Schlund + Partner AG E-Mail: jug@schlund.de Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12 Tel. +49-721-91374-50 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax +49-721-91374-20 http://www.schlund.de Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62F8Ko2002937 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:08:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g62F8KQH002936 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:08:20 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from rs1.arin.net (rs1.arin.net [192.149.252.21]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62F8Io2002931 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:08:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: from ops.arin.net (ops.arin.net [192.149.252.141]) by rs1.arin.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23191; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.149.252.229] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA07728; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: edlewis@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: <a05111b01b947717d0cf2@[192.149.252.229]> In-Reply-To: <00b701c221d0$f6c3daa0$1802a8c0@afilias.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207021001010.1927-100000@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> <002f01c221c5$5be23320$6501a8c0@neteka.inc> <00b701c221d0$f6c3daa0$1802a8c0@afilias.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:08:15 -0400 To: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juli=E1n?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mu=F1oz?= <jmunoz@softhome.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net> Subject: Re: EPP and # of nameservers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk EPP does not impose a 2 name server limit (i.e., does not enforce a 2 name server minimum). Such a limit is a registry-specific policy decision. EPP is designed to be policy neutral. I.e., a registrar can send an EPP schema with just one name server in a request and the registry has the option to deny the request. This option is taken at a layer above the EPP protocol. The only diffence to EPP is whether the registrar returns an 'ack' or 'nack' to the request. At 9:29 AM -0400 7/2/02, Ram Mohan wrote: >EPP itself, afaik, does not impose a 2 name server limit -- we've created >test names with no host objects associated. > >we don't publish to the zone file if we have less than 2 name servers - >that's a policy decision, not a protocol one. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62E5Lo2002488 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:05:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g62E5LIH002487 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:05:21 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from ns01.afilias.info (ns01.afilias.info [66.45.25.225]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62E5Jo2002482 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:05:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: from RAMLAPTOP (ATHM-216-217-xxx-252.newedgenetworks.com [216.217.55.252]) by ns01.afilias.info (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g62E4d229064; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:04:39 -0400 Message-ID: <00b701c221d0$f6c3daa0$1802a8c0@afilias.com> From: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info> To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Juli=E1n_Mu=F1oz?= <jmunoz@softhome.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207021001010.1927-100000@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> <002f01c221c5$5be23320$6501a8c0@neteka.inc> Subject: Re: EPP and # of nameservers Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:29:55 -0400 Organization: Afilias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk EPP itself, afaik, does not impose a 2 name server limit -- we've created test names with no host objects associated. we don't publish to the zone file if we have less than 2 name servers - that's a policy decision, not a protocol one. -ram -------------------------------------------------------- Ram Mohan Vice President, Business Operations / CTO Afilias.INFO p: +1-215-706-5700; f: +1-215-706-5701 e: rmohan@afilias.info -------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com> To: "Julián Muñoz" <jmunoz@softhome.net>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:38 AM Subject: Re: EPP and # of nameservers > I would be very surprised if EPP itself did force the rule of at least 2 > nameservers, cause I think a domain could be created with no name servers. > EPP is a general provisioning framework, registry policies would be > implemented in the registry system after obtaining information that was sent > via EPP. This is based on my understanding and our implementation of EPP to > complement our Registry System. > Edmon > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julián Muñoz" <jmunoz@softhome.net> > To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:06 AM > Subject: EPP and # of nameservers > > > Hello, > > I would like to know if the EPP protocol forces 2 nameservers per domain > name, or it won't work. > > Or it is really a decision of a registry to not allow only 1 nameserver. > > > Thank you, > > > > -- > Saludos de Julián > -.- > > > > > > > Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62CcZo2001930 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:38:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g62CcZf2001928 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:38:35 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from neteka.com (host-111.innovation.t1.primus.ca [216.254.145.111] (may be forged)) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g62CcXo2001923 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:38:34 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <002f01c221c5$5be23320$6501a8c0@neteka.inc> From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com> To: "Julián Muñoz" <jmunoz@softhome.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207021001010.1927-100000@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> Subject: Re: EPP and # of nameservers Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:38:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk I would be very surprised if EPP itself did force the rule of at least 2 nameservers, cause I think a domain could be created with no name servers. EPP is a general provisioning framework, registry policies would be implemented in the registry system after obtaining information that was sent via EPP. This is based on my understanding and our implementation of EPP to complement our Registry System. Edmon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julián Muñoz" <jmunoz@softhome.net> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:06 AM Subject: EPP and # of nameservers Hello, I would like to know if the EPP protocol forces 2 nameservers per domain name, or it won't work. Or it is really a decision of a registry to not allow only 1 nameserver. Thank you, -- Saludos de Julián -.- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62A7so2001003 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:07:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g62A7sU5001002 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:07:54 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from julian.ea4acl.ampr.org (10.Red-80-33-22.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.33.22.10]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g62A7qo2000997 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:07:53 +0200 (MEST) Received: by julian.ea4acl.ampr.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id 64F408F915; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:06:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by julian.ea4acl.ampr.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632088F913 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:06:59 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:06:59 +0000 (GMT) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Juli=E1n_Mu=F1oz?= <jmunoz@softhome.net> X-Sender: <jmunoz@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: EPP and # of nameservers Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207021001010.1927-100000@julian.ea4acl.ampr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by nic.cafax.se id g62A7so2000998 Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hello, I would like to know if the EPP protocol forces 2 nameservers per domain name, or it won't work. Or it is really a decision of a registry to not allow only 1 nameserver. Thank you, -- Saludos de Julián -.- Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Ia1o2025500 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:36:01 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g61Ia1tD025499 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:36:01 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Ia0o2025494 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:36:00 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650b-s1p2.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g61IZON29119 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:35:49 -0400 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKGMH5>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:35:09 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084016@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: EPP PUSH: Session Property Re-negotiation Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:33:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi, all, This quesiton has to do with whether the server can change the session property regarding PUSH or not PUSH after the session is set up. At present, if a session is set up for PUSH, the server is allowed to push data to the client and the client shall be ready to process server-pushed messages. On the other hand, if the session is not set up for PUSH, the server shall not push data to the client and the client shall reject any server-pushed message. The PUSH vs. not PUSH property is set during session establishment and persists throughout the session until it is closed down. This is the basic PUSH. I would like to know how people on the list feel about it: is it desirable to allow session property re-negotiation after the session is set up? Thanks! --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Hlro2025174 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:47:53 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g61HlrCm025173 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:47:53 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Hlpo2025168 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:47:52 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650b-s1p2.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g61HlFN27491 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:47:41 -0400 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKGL5B>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:47:00 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084013@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: EPP PUSH: Session Setup Semantics Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:45:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hi, all, Now that we are moving towards developing a transport neutral EPP PUSH capability, I would like to ping the list on some design choices at hand. The first issue comes to mind is what we mean by setting up a session that the server can push data to the client. To set the context, I reiterate the EPP session setup procedure in my previous email. I will use the terms "server" and "client" as defined in the base EPP. 1. Upon successful connection establishment, the server sends a <greeting> message to the client, advertising its intent to support EPP PUSH in the this EPP session. This is done by supplying the EPP PUSH URI as an <extURI> value within the <svcExtension> field. 2. The client responds with a <login> command. The client includes the EPP PUSH URI as an <extURI> value within the <svcExtension> field if and only if it agrees to support EPP PUSH in this session. 3. The server responds to the <login> command. If the client logins successfully, the EPP session is established AND both the server and the client are in sync about whether this session can be used for server-pushed data or not. Here is the potential ambiguity I would like to resolve. Suppose both the server and the client agree on supporting EPP PUSH in this session, there are two possible semantics: a. Push-only semantics. The session can only be used for server-pushed messages. The client cannot use <poll> in this session to retrieve messages from the server. b. Mixed semantics. Both server-push and client-poll are allowed. In both cases, I think it is reasonable to assume that other EPP commands and responses are allowed. Which semantics should we pick, (a) or (b)? Is this a registry policy issue or a standardization issue? Cheers, --Hong Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61FfQo2024323 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:41:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g61FfQaY024322 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:41:26 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from nic-naa.net (216-220-241-233.midmaine.com [216.220.241.233]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61FfPo2024317 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:41:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.4/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g61FdjBZ028260; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:39:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200207011539.g61FdjBZ028260@nic-naa.net> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: TCP Mapping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:42:13 CDT." <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08400E@STNTEXCH1> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 11:39:45 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong, I'm sure Scott will be gratified. Some observations: o NeuStar's rtk packages may need only minor or no modification to skip the tcp header length error check, and not discard a message which appears to be corrupted, o Liberty's rtk package's also may be easily modified to skip the same apparent error condition, o It is unlikely that ordinary interoperability testing would ever initiate a transfer of size 2^^24 bits, as you observed in your initial note, and discover an unexpected return value, o I expect that the NeuStar's rtk packages can be modified to reduce the probability of triggering a "large" return, exceeding the 2^^24 bit size limit (or 2^^31 for that matter), quite possibly it can't support large messages anyway, o I expect that ICANN could be pursuaded that "very large" queries (made by non-NeuStar rtks, should any be used to connect to the NeuStar registry, lacking the above "throttling limit"), are not good policy, and so may be truncated (or discarded) at the whim of the registry (or near 2^^24 bits). In short, if you were willing to create an exception to the eventual status docs this WG may produce, and simply require that length-based error check not be used when clients connect your server, no one would ever have known that NeuStar is using one or more low-probability-of-use bits in the tcp header. It used to be necessary to turn off udp checksums to run nfs (version 2) on any kind of network. Turning off length-based error checking when connecting to the NeuStar registry would be no stranger to experienced operators. It is hard to distinguish from turning off parser validation. I look forward to a draft. Eric Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Ei1o2024000 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:44:01 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g61Ei1BZ023999 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:44:01 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Ehxo2023994 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:44:00 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650b-s1p2.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g61EhYN22008 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:43:49 -0400 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKGKG5>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:43:19 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08400E@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: TCP Mapping Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:42:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Eric, Given the input we gathered from the list, we (my coauthors and I) decided to adopt Scott's suggestion and forgo the "P"-bit option. I don't feel the need to dwell on this subject any longer. Our draft is forth-coming. So please stay tuned... --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:04 AM To: Liu, Hong Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: TCP Mapping Hong, You've answered a flow-control (dualing endpoints flipping P-BITS) query. You've answered a payload (same as <poll> elements, and unspec else) query. For reasons I'm unclear on, your comments across several items of mail suggest that these are mutually exclusive mechanisms for "tagging" some "server-pushed message". (See also "careful reading" below). Am I correct in guessing that if your preferred method of signaling (P-BIT) is the mechanism, that the payload data could be marked up as <poll> data, with some as yet unspecified additional content? To correctly decode <poll>, a client would have to first determin the value of P-BIT? Or is XML even present in the P-BIT signaled payload data? A question I don't seem to have seen answered is how you are proposing to modify a transport draft that has no options, and which itself is not optional in the protocol draft. Are the properties you've described unique to implementations that elect to implement them (MAY), or are they common to all implementations (MUST)? There are business reasons why a client implementation of 6/4 over tcp wouldn't connect to a NeuStar server implementation of 6/4. Are there also technical reasons why the same two implementations couldn't be capable of error-free interoperation? There has been prior discussion of a <push> command. Looking back over your messages I see that I wasn't carefull enough reading. I missed the fact that you proposed to use 8 bits to signal directionality, not one (mail of 28 June). Either that mail, or your reply to my edit of tcp-04 (mail of 29 June), which referenced a single bit, but not both, can be correct. Which is it? 8 bits, or 1 bit? If 8 bits, are the remaining 7 bits "reserved" for some future signaling or differentiation mechanism, or are they "don't care" (ignore)? Eric Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Edfo2023956 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:39:41 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g61EdfPG023955 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:39:41 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from oak.neustar.com (oak.neustar.com [209.173.53.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61Eddo2023950 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:39:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (stih650b-s1p2.va.neustar.com [209.173.53.65]) by oak.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g61Ed3N21856 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:39:29 -0400 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKGK1T>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:38:48 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08400D@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: RE: push Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:37:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Rick, Given what we have gathered from the list so far, we (my coauthors and I) decided to forgo the TCP mapping option and proceed with Scott's suggestion to define a new XML schema. I hope that clarifies your inquiry. If not, please expand. Thanks! --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 11:38 PM To: Liu, Hong Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se' Subject: push Hong, could you please restate your case for pushing data, specificly stating your reasoning for updating the tcp transport for epp. thanks, -rick Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61B5Qo2022668 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:05:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g61B5QMT022667 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:05:26 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from nic-naa.net (216-220-241-233.midmaine.com [216.220.241.233]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g61B5No2022662 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:05:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.4/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g61B3gBZ027553; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 07:03:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200207011103.g61B3gBZ027553@nic-naa.net> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: TCP Mapping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:34:27 CDT." <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08400A@STNTEXCH1> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 07:03:42 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong, You've answered a flow-control (dualing endpoints flipping P-BITS) query. You've answered a payload (same as <poll> elements, and unspec else) query. For reasons I'm unclear on, your comments across several items of mail suggest that these are mutually exclusive mechanisms for "tagging" some "server-pushed message". (See also "careful reading" below). Am I correct in guessing that if your preferred method of signaling (P-BIT) is the mechanism, that the payload data could be marked up as <poll> data, with some as yet unspecified additional content? To correctly decode <poll>, a client would have to first determin the value of P-BIT? Or is XML even present in the P-BIT signaled payload data? A question I don't seem to have seen answered is how you are proposing to modify a transport draft that has no options, and which itself is not optional in the protocol draft. Are the properties you've described unique to implementations that elect to implement them (MAY), or are they common to all implementations (MUST)? There are business reasons why a client implementation of 6/4 over tcp wouldn't connect to a NeuStar server implementation of 6/4. Are there also technical reasons why the same two implementations couldn't be capable of error-free interoperation? There has been prior discussion of a <push> command. Looking back over your messages I see that I wasn't carefull enough reading. I missed the fact that you proposed to use 8 bits to signal directionality, not one (mail of 28 June). Either that mail, or your reply to my edit of tcp-04 (mail of 29 June), which referenced a single bit, but not both, can be correct. Which is it? 8 bits, or 1 bit? If 8 bits, are the remaining 7 bits "reserved" for some future signaling or differentiation mechanism, or are they "don't care" (ignore)? Eric Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g613cCo2020673 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 05:38:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g613cBGa020672 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 05:38:11 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from bean.ar.com ([66.123.187.68]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g613cAo2020667 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 05:38:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: from flash.ar.com (wessorh@flash [66.123.187.80]) by bean.ar.com (8.12.2/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g613c0Th027734; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:38:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: push In-Reply-To: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08400A@STNTEXCH1> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0206302036310.8618-100000@flash.ar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong, could you please restate your case for pushing data, specificly stating your reasoning for updating the tcp transport for epp. thanks, -rick Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g612Zfo2020460 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 04:35:41 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g612ZfYp020459 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 04:35:41 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from pine.neustar.com (pine.neustar.com [209.173.57.70]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g612Zeo2020454 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 04:35:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: from chiimc01.il.neustar.com (chih650b-s3p2.il.neustar.com [209.173.57.65]) by pine.neustar.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g612Zat12181 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:35:39 -0500 Received: by chiimc01.il.neustar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NJXKGHPF>; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:35:32 -0500 Message-ID: <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E08400A@STNTEXCH1> From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> To: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: TCP Mapping Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:34:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Eric, I would like to give a high level answer to your two questions. For details, please see our draft coming up... As you may have mentioned, there are two aspects of "EPP PUSH" (I am using the term in a broad sense here): First, the semantics of EPP PUSH, which is your second question. My definition is the server pushing unsolicited data to the client during an EPP session. By that, I mean a counterpart of <poll>. So conceptually, this is very simple. Procedurally, it involves three steps: o Negotiation of PUSH capability between the server and the client during session establishment. o Server-pushed message exchange after the session is setup as "push-enabled". o Session teardown post-processing (if required). I have explained the first step in my previous email to you. The last step may or may not be necessary, depending on whether we allow concurrent PUSH over multiple sessions, and whether we allow changing session property on the fly (e.g., from not push-enabled to push-enabled and vice versa). When I say "server" and "client", they are defined in the context of base EPP and its TCP mapping. In the BEEP mapping, they may be better labeled as peering receiver and sender. If they are to be defined in a transport neutral manner, we may need to either redefine the two terms or come up with new terms for them. I would prefer to keep them as defined in the base EPP, but your suggestion is welcome. Second, the syntax of EPP PUSH extension, which is your first questoin. This is the topic I brought up to the list for discussion. The key question is how to tag the server-pushed message. Using the "P"-bit in the Total Length field is one way, defining a new <push> command and corresponding response and some new result codes is another. Suppose we proceed with the second approach. Then a new XML schema will define their syntax as extension, referred to by an EPP PUSH URI. The <push> command at the minimum will carry the data elements of a <poll> response. The EPP PUSH URI will also be used in the session establishment step for the server to advertise this extension and for the client to subscribe to the extension. Of course, there are other details that need to be iron out. I hope that I have answered your questions on a high level. --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 6:24 PM To: Liu, Hong Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: TCP Mapping Hong, How is your extension supposed to work? Exactly what do you mean by "EPP PUSH"? Eric Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g5UMPBo2018897 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 00:25:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g5UMPBhg018896 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 00:25:11 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f Received: from nic-naa.net (216-220-241-233.midmaine.com [216.220.241.233]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g5UMP9o2018888 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 00:25:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.4/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5UMNdBZ025782; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:23:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200206302223.g5UMNdBZ025782@nic-naa.net> To: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> cc: "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: TCP Mapping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:16:42 CDT." <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084006@STNTEXCH1> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:23:39 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se Precedence: bulk Hong, How is your extension supposed to work? Exactly what do you mean by "EPP PUSH"? Eric ------- Forwarded Message Hong, You wrote: > Most (if not all) EPP implementations today use TCP and will stay that way > for a long time. I'm don't doubt the correctness of your statement concerning the NeuStar registry and client. I don't do business with NeuStar, or follow it with any particular interest, so other than what NeuStar contributors disclose on this list, concerning its implementation or plan of record, I wouldn't know (and don't care). I do know that I'm not the sole implementor who has, or is working on, an implementation of EPP using a BEEP channel profile. I'm surprised to learn of NeuStar's long-term de-committment from EPP over BEEP -- this month in particular. You wrote: > ... we want to make PUSH work using TCP. It is > not a requirement, it is an extension with which we can use PUSH for EPP > over TCP. Your initial note to this list, and Scott's careful recitation, reflect that your desire is to modify a transport draft that has no options, and which itself is not optional in the protocol draft. Just how is the NeuStar extension supposed to work? This way? o client implementations communicating with the NeuStar registry MUST NOT ignore the P-BIT, and o client implementations communicating with another registry MAY ignore the P-BIT? Or this way? o client implementations communicating with any registry MUST NOT ignore the P-BIT? You wrote: > 1. Can EPP PUSH be used for EPP over TCP? Could you suggest a definition for "EPP PUSH" please? I seem to have missed it. Eric ------- End of Forwarded Message
- RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action No… Hollenbeck, Scott
- RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action No… Hollenbeck, Scott
- RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action No… Hollenbeck, Scott
- RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action No… Liu, Hong
- RE: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action No… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action No… janusz sienkiewicz