Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)

Thomas Corte <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> Tue, 22 May 2018 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534FB12EB30 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2018 05:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zn5wJBq0BV19 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2018 05:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx5b.knipp.de (s671.bbone.dtm.knipp.de [195.253.6.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7122124217 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2018 05:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: s671
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx5b.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E41C300190 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2018 12:34:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from flexo.fritz.box (fw.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.17]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1188ABB860 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2018 14:33:32 +0200 (MESZ)
To: regext@ietf.org
References: <3266784A-E663-4465-8ABF-A3305B83C253@verisign.com> <58605AC6-A8B3-4428-A71E-580E6BC01EFF@verisign.com> <1524032366.3941888.1341940112.7D43F230@webmail.messagingengine.com> <BEC1040F-25C7-4F52-BB94-1F55BFA4C1C7@verisign.com> <1524203922.4022062.1344535160.39F0C10F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <83479150-4E98-452F-B27B-BD286AA18C1B@verisign.com> <1524425212.2370983.1346768616.2A2DE208@webmail.messagingengine.com> <48889EC8-FF2C-4CF3-B5E1-9DC5482E06E9@verisign.com> <CF701CA2-F63A-4573-AB87-68E3AB30C635@elistx.com> <5743B914-A1C7-426C-B0AA-515A3AEB5C72@verisign.com> <CY4PR02MB254962B12D6D196EACE492AEB1860@CY4PR02MB2549.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <8A5C829F-BB67-4BA2-8E3E-5A4002D7D2CA@dnsbelgium.be> <1526875928.815044.1378899224.71EFB177@webmail.messagingengine.com> <F9BD7DC9-8472-438E-BDDD-8658A0D0A841@verisign.com> <1526973885.2320203.1380323248.3A725D0E@webmail.messagingengine.com> <96AC029A-47E4-4729-8297-571F9A34FE6C@verisign.com>
From: Thomas Corte <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
Organization: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Message-ID: <e0e688bd-c1ff-233d-a454-bb80cc7af66c@knipp.de>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:33:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <96AC029A-47E4-4729-8297-571F9A34FE6C@verisign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Rspamd-Server: s671
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2E41C300190
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; IP_WHITELIST(0.00)[195.253.2.54]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:195.253.0.0/16, country:DE]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/BQaSt1jL3XitkSZ-tSo4u2tW-kc>
Subject: Re: [regext] Poll messages with unhandled namespaces (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 12:34:09 -0000

Hello,

On 5/22/18 14:23, Gould, James wrote:

> Patrick,
> 
> Referring to the language in the RFC is the starting point in the
> discussion related to defining the problem that may or may not require a
> solution.  I disagree that we should look at the various implementation
> policies implemented in the wild by registries and registrars to develop
> the appropriate interpretation of the RFC.  I see three options with the
> interpretation of the RFC:
> ...
>  3. There is a problem and a common solution is required
>      1.  The RFC does not support servers returning services that the
>         client does not include in the login services and a common
>         solution is required.  It’s pretty straight forward for the
>         server not to return an extension in the response to an object
>         command (e.g., domain create), so the real problem is associated
>         with the poll messages. 
>      2. With this option, we can start the discussion on defining a
>         common solution for the handling of poll messages that the client
>         does not support based on the login services.
> 
>  
> 
> I believed I jumped to a proposal for a common solution without
> determining whether the problem is important enough to address.  I do not
> agree with option 1 based on what is defined in RFC 5730, so it comes
> down between option 2 and 3. 

I agree with option 3 only. Our registrar client systems use a validating
parser for registry responses, and it's always a major pain to fix issues
when unexpected XML namespaces start showing up.

That being said, for some registries (such as Afilias) it seems to be a
challenge to even produce schema-compliant server responses when it comes
to the standard EPP RFC schemas.

Best regards,

Thomas Corte

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: Thomas.Corte@knipp.de
Germany