Re: [regext] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-org-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin,



How about the following clarifying changes?


Client status values that can be added or removed by a client are prefixed
with "client".  Corresponding server status values that can be added or
removed by a server are prefixed with "server".



And



A client MUST NOT alter server status values set by the server.



—

JG







James Gould

Distinguished Engineer

[e-mail]



703-948-3271

12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190



Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>



On 11/7/18, 11:43 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]> wrote:



    [Sorry for the misattribution in the quoting -- the text/plain I'm

    responding to did not indicate any quoting at all and I'd probably mess it

    up if I tried to manually fix it]



    On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 11:39:40AM +0000, Gould, James wrote:

    > Benjamin,

    >

    >

    >

    > This seems overly zealous to the point of being harmful.  For example, if a

    >

    > server sets the status to "ok", a client cannot replace it by

    >

    > clientLinkProhibited?

    >

    >

    >

    > The “ok” status is the default status and not classified as a server status, since it is not prefixed with “server”.  The sentence “A client MUST NOT alter status values set by the server.” means that the client cannot set or remove a server status, such as serverUpdateProhibited.  I hope this clarifies what is defined in the EPP RFCs (5730-5733) and draft-ietf-regext-org.



    To be clear, I'm solely commenting on the specific wording -- a "status set

    by the server" is a different meaning than a "server status".  In the

    dumbest possible reading, the server sets the "ok" status at creation, and

    the exact proposed text could be read as denying the client from changing

    it.  So, my point is just "be careful about the way you word it".



    -Benjamin



    >

    >

    > —

    >

    > JG

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > James Gould

    >

    > Distinguished Engineer

    >

    > [e-mail]

    >

    >

    >

    > 703-948-3271

    >

    > 12061 Bluemont Way

    >

    > Reston, VA 20190

    >

    >

    >

    > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

    >

    >

    >

    > On 10/31/18, 10:23 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    >

    >

    >

    >     Trimming to just one potentially problematic suggestion...

    >

    >

    >

    >     On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:25:42AM +0800, Linlin Zhou wrote:

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     > Linlin Zhou

    >

    >     > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    >

    >     > DISCUSS:

    >

    >     > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    >

    >     [...]

    >

    >     > [Linlin] Our proposal is to add the lead-in bolded text to match the existing EPP RFC's to the Organization mapping. There has been no issues with the interpretation of the statuses with the EPP RFCs, so it's best to match them as closely as possible. In section 3.4,

    >

    >

    >

    >     [bold does not work super-well in text/plain mail, but

    >

    >     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/regext/current/msg01912.html can show

    >

    >     it]

    >

    >

    >

    >     > An organization object MUST always have at least one associated status

    >

    >     > value. Status values can be set only by the client that sponsors an

    >

    >     > organization object and by the server on which the object resides. A

    >

    >     > client can change the status of an organization object using the EPP

    >

    >     > <update> command. Each status value MAY be accompanied by a string

    >

    >     > of human-readable text that describes the rationale for the status

    >

    >     > applied to the object.

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     > A client MUST NOT alter status values set by the server. A server

    >

    >

    >

    >     This seems overly zealous to the point of being harmful.  For example, if a

    >

    >     server sets the status to "ok", a client cannot replace it by

    >

    >     clientLinkProhibited?

    >

    >

    >

    >     -Benjamin

    >

    >

    >

    >     > MAY alter or override status values set by a client, subject to local

    >

    >     > server policies. The status of an object MAY change as a result of

    >

    >     > either a client-initiated transform command or an action performed by

    >

    >     > a server operator.

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     > Status values that can be added or removed by a client are prefixed

    >

    >     > with "client". Corresponding status values that can be added or

    >

    >     > removed by a server are prefixed with "server". The "hold" and

    >

    >     > "terminated" status values are server-managed when the organization

    >

    >     > has no parent identifier [Section 3.6] and otherwise MAY be client-

    >

    >     > managed based on server policy. Status values that

    >

    >     > do not begin with either "client" or "server" are server-managed.

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     > Take "clientUpdateProhibited" for example.

    >

    >     > If status value "clientUpdateProhibited" is set by a client

    >

    >     > then <update> command is not allowed to perform by a client

    >

    >     > If status value "clientUpdateProhibited" is removed by a client or a server

    >

    >     > then no limitation of performing EPP commands

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     >

    >

    >     >

    >

    >