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

[Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 21, 2018, at 16:15, Gould, James wrote:
> The EPP greeting per RFC 5730 "identifies the services supported by the 
> server".  The EPP login command services per RFC 5730 includes "<objURI> 
> elements that contain URIs representing the objects to be managed during 
> the session" and "MAY contain one or more <extURI> elements that 
> identify objects extensions to be used during the session".  I don't 
> view the services included in the greeting or the login command as 
> information, but used to negotiate the object and extension services to 
> be used by the client and server during the session.  The client must 
> not pass services that the server does not support based on the EPP 
> greeting services, and the server must not pass services that the client 
> does not support based on the login command services. 

James,

Just repeating the same interpretation of some text in order to come to the same conclusion as the preferred one without wanting to see other points in the global picture is a sure way to close the discussion, and not to open it.

> A client that is capable 
> of accepting every possible services in the response can simply mirror 
> the greeting services in the login services.

Read my messages. You have examples when this does not correspond to reality.

It is fine having only one implementation in mind and defining stuff to conform to it but, sorry, there are others, and other use cases too.

>  If we come to agreement on the meaning of the 
> greeting and login services then we can move onto the question of 
> handling poll messages that contain services that may not be supported 
> by a client.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Like I said multiple times the problem, if it exists (as I am not sure it exists), must first be clearly specified, taking into account all use cases. Only after that we can discuss on how to read the current documentation and see what the conclusions are.

Starting by interpreting the text to come to a favorable conclusion is not really trying to discuss or come into agreement or consensus in my mind.

But again, I think we rehashed this point often enough now, so besides some specific document to discuss, or other new views to exchange, it may be better to let the thread die.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek