Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/p roposal

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:22 -0500

> I think that unless something is really broken with <renew> 
> approach, rgp
> syntax changes that may impact operating clients should be avoided.

But:

1. We're talking about an Internet-Draft (meaning "implement at your own
risk!"), and an individual submission that hasn't been commented on very
broadly at that.

2. I think we need to come up with something that we can all implement the
same way to maximize interoperability opportunities.

Part of what I think is broken is that redemption should not necessarily
require an implicit renewal.  I prefer the idea of "redeem via update" and
then "renew if necessary".  That's two commands, but it's two commands that
are doing very different things.

If people are already doing RGP as an extended renewal, what are they doing
about the renewal part of the command?

-Scott-

---

From: janusz sienkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:04:41 -0500

Please see comments below:

> are doing very different things.

I think "renew if necessary" approach is more flexible than "redeem via
update". I covers situations when rgp restore involves renewals and situation
when it does not. Approach "redeem via update" does not offer such flexibility
it assumes that renewal will never be a part of rgp restore.

The wording for <renew> command in rgp draft document could be modified to
indicate that the absence of period element in <renew> part or value ZERO
should indicate that renewal should not be a part of rgp restore. Another
option would be to force server to ignore the value of <period> element and
assume certain value.

> about the renewal part of the command?

I am aware of one implementation that just ignores the value of <period>
element and assumes ZERO if rgp extension is present.

> -Scott-

Janusz Sienkiewicz