Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07

["Linlin Zhou" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Adam and WG,
Sorry, please ignore last unfinished letter.

We've received some comments on the appropriate error codes. Since draft-ietf-regext-org-ext is a command / response extension of another object that is related to a link attribute, 2305 seems like a more proper error code for all of them, which means "Object association prohibits operation". The association dould refer to an existing association (e.g., attempt to add alink that already exists) or a requested association (e.g. attempt to remove a link that does not exist).
We found that in RFC5730 , the document already defined the response format with error value elements using <value> or <extValue> for an object. So we suggest not defining the specific response format in this command/response extension.
The co-authors have discussed this issue and suggested the following changes.

An EPP error response MUST be returned if an <update> command cannot be processed for any reason. 
An attempt to add one organization ID or multiple organization IDs with a particular role value when at least one of them already exists does not change the object at all. A server SHOULD notify clients that object relationsips exit by sending a 2305 error response code.
An attempt to remove an organization ID or multiple organization IDs with a particular role value when at least one of them does not exist does not change the object at all. A server SHOULD notify clients that object relationships does not exist by sending a 2305 error response code.
An attempt to change an organiztion ID or multiple organization IDs with a particular role value when at least one of them does not exist does not change the object at all. A server SHOULD notify clients that object relationships does not eixt by sending a 2305 error response code.
Response format with error value elements is defined in section 2.6 of RFC5730.

Regards,
Linlin


[e-mail]
 
From: Linlin Zhou
Date: 2018-08-08 13:06
To: Adam Roach; draft-ietf-regext-org-ext; regext
Subject: Re: Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07
Dear Adam,
I have included my feedbacks for the remaining issues. Please see below.

Regards,
Linlin


[e-mail]
 
From: Adam Roach
Date: 2018-08-07 07:51
To: Linlin Zhou; draft-ietf-regext-org-ext; regext
Subject: Re: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07
Responses inline.

On 7/30/18 1:21 AM, Linlin Zhou wrote:
Dear Adam,
Thanks for your review. I have my feedbacks started with [Linlin]. I'll update the draft based on your comments.

Regards,
Linlin


[e-mail]
 
From: Adam Roach
Date: 2018-07-28 07:04
To: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext; [e-mail]
Subject: [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07.  I have a handful of
comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to
consider the document. Please treat them as you would any other last-call
comments.
 
There are also two blocking comments that need to be resolved prior to 
IETF last
call.
 
Thanks to everyone who worked on this document.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is a blocking comment.
 
This document raises the same question as draft-ietf-regext-org-08 does
regarding the allowable placement of XML namespace declarations within the
document; see, e.g., the following text:
 
>  In addition to the EPP command elements
>  described in the EPP object extensions, the command MUST contain an
>  <extension> element, and the <extension> element MUST contain a child
>  <orgext:create> element that identifies the extension namespace if
>  the client wants to associate data defined in this extension to the
>  object.
 
I presume the same answer will apply to this document as does to
draft-ietf-regext-org-08.
 
Affected elements appear to also include <orgext:update> and 
<orgext:infData>.
 
[Linlin] Please see my feedback in the reply of org draft. Thanks.


I assume we'll resolve this the same way in both documents.

[Linlin]  I've updated some words. Please see the feedback of org draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is a blocking comment, as it impacts interoperability.
 
§4.2.5:
 
This section defines remove and change elements that use "role" as a key. It
is unclear whether an attempt to remove or change an identifier 
corresponding to
a role that is not present in the object results in an error, or is 
treated as
success.
 
For example, if an "example.com" is currently in the system as a 
reseller, but
is *not* in the system as a privacyproxy, would an update containing the
following elements return a success response or an error response?
 
   C:      <orgext:update
   C:        xmlns:orgext="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:orgext-1.0">
   C:        <orgext:rem>
   C:          <orgext:id role="privacyproxy"/>
   C:        </orgext:rem>
   C:      </orgext:update>
 
If the answer is that an error is returned, then that error needs to be 
clearly
specified in this document.

[Linlin]I think an error should be returned.


Okay -- we need to say which error code to use, then.


 
The same question needs to be answered for <orgext:chg>.


Is the answer the same for <orgext:chg> as for <orgext:rem>?


Similarly, if <orgext:add> is issued for a role that already exists in the 
object, does this result in an error, or is the existing role identifier
silently overridden?


This question also needs an answer.


 
If the answer to "is this an error" is "yes" for any or all of the
preceding questions: this document needs to clearly spell out what 
happens when
an <orgext:...> element contains multiple <orgext:id> elements, and 
*some* of
them cause an error while *some* of them do not.


This also still needs to be addressed. For example:

If "example.com" is currently in the system as a reseller, but is *not* in the system as a privacyproxy, what would the following command do?
 
   C:      <orgext:update
   C:        xmlns:orgext="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:orgext-1.0">
   C:        <orgext:rem>
   C:          <orgext:id role="reseller"/>
   C:          <orgext:id role="privacyproxy"/>
   C:        </orgext:rem>
   C:      </orgext:update>


This could do any of the following, and the document needs to be clear which one actually happens:

The command succeeds, and the "reseller" ID is removed from "example.com"
The command fails because "privacyproxy" doesn't exist as an ID on "example.com." No changes are made.
The command partially succeeds: the "reseller" ID is removed from "example.com," but the response is an error message because "privacyproxy" could not be returned.
The semantics around #3 are very complicated, since you'll ultimately need to indicate which part of the command succeeded and which part failed, so you probably want to pick #1 or #2. Given your answer above that removing a non-existent orgext-ID from an object is a failure, I think #2 is the most consistent. But this needs to be clearly specified.



Finally, if the <orgext:add> and <orgext:chg> elements do not result in 
errors
in the cases described above, then this document should clearly specify how
processing is different between those two elements, or clearly specify that
handling of both elements is identical.
 
[Linlin] So is it ok to add some words like "An EPP error response MUST be returned if an <update> command cannot be processed for any reason." ?


That's really not enough. You need to be very clear about what "cannot be processed" means. And, since you have commands that perform more than one operation at the same time, you need to be very clear about handling when one of those operations would be okay, but the other one is not.

I don't want to tell you how to resolve each of these issues; but, based on the one answer you gave above (about removing a non-existent ID), the following clarifications would be consistent:
An attempt to remove an ID that does not exist results in an error with a result code of UUUU
An attempt to change an ID that does not exist results in an error with a result code of VVVV
An attempt to add an ID that *does* already exist results in an error with a result code of WWWW
An attempt to remove more than one ID where at least one of them does not exist does not change the object at all, and results in an error with a result code of XXXX
An attempt to change multiple IDs where at least one of them does not exist does not change the object at all, and results in an error with a result code of YYYY
An attempt to add multiple IDs when at least one of them already exists does not change the object at all, and results in an error with a result code of YYYY
You will need to say all six things. Also, for #4, #5, and #6, you'll need to think about whether there is any way for the client to know which ID caused the operation to fail
Note that the result codes above might be the same as each other or different from each other. I have no opinion on which is better, as I'm not familiar with the philosophy of how result codes are used in EPP.

[Linlin] Thanks for your suggestions. Adding some words at the end of this section. I think error codes 2302 and 2303 defined in RFC5730 could be used.

An EPP error response MUST be returned if an <update> command cannot be processed for any reason. 
An attempt to add an organization ID that does already exist results in an error with a result code of 2302. An attempt to add multiple organization IDs when at least one of them already exists does not change the object at all, and results in an error with a result code of 2302.
An attempt to remove an organization ID that does not exist results in an error with a result code of 2303. An attempt to remove more than one ID where at least one of them does not exist does not change the object at all, and results in an error with a result code of 2303.
An attempt to change an ID that does not exist results in an error with a result code of 2303. An attempt to add multiple IDs when at least one of them already exists does not change the object at all, and results in an error with a result code of 2303.
If we want to identify which ID is the failing one, I think maybe we need to extend the <update> response. Something like this,
   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="2302">
   S:      <msg>Object exists</msg>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <resData>
   S:      <org:updData xmlns:org="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:orgext-1.0">
   S:        <org:id>res1523</org:id>
   S:      </org:updData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>


<element name="updData" type="orgext:updDataType"/>

 <complexType name="updDataType">
      <sequence>
        <element name="id" type="eppcom:clIDType"  minOccurs="0"/>
      </sequence>
  </complexType>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 



The resolution to the remaining issues all seem fine to me. Thanks.

/a