Subject: [Ietf-not43] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt

From: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:43:51 -0500

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Cross Registry Information Service Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) 
                          Requirements
	Author(s)	: A. Newton
	Filename	: draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt
	Pages		: 29
	Date		: 2003-2-4
	
Internet registries expose administrative and operational data via
varying directory services. This document defines functional
requirements for the directory services of domain registries and the
common base requirements for extending the use of these services for
other types of Internet registries.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	access-type="mail-server";
	server="[email-masked]"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<[email-masked]>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-03.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<[email-masked]>

--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:34:32 -0600

I cannot overstate how strongly I believe there must be a requirement for
version identifiers in the schema and/or protocol.

X.1 The protocol MUST provide a means by which the end-systems can either
identify or negotiate over the protocol version to be used for any query
or set of queries.

X.2 The service SHOULD allow end-systems using different protocol versions
to fallback to a mutually supported protocol version. If this is not
possible, the service MUST provide a meaningful error which indicates that
this is the specific case.

Y.1 All resource-specific schema MUST provide a version identifier
attribute which uniquely and unambiguosly identifies the version of the
schema being returned in the answer set to a query.

Y.2 The service MUST suggest negotiation and/or recovery mechanisms for
clients to use when an unknown schema version is received.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:53:16 -0500

> clients to use when an unknown schema version is received.

I concur.  And I believe you have stated this request before with no 
objections.  So its my fault its not in there.  Sorry about that.

Thanks for the text too.  Would it be ok to combine them?

-andy

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:57:25 -0600

> Thanks for the text too.  Would it be ok to combine them?

It's okay by me. I separated them because they are different issues, in
that schema and protocol have separate requirements.

Also, in my specific case, the LDAP specs satisfy the X.* requirements,
but I'll have to do something to satisfy the Y.* requirements. It's easier
for me to think about the issues if they are separate requirements.