Subject: RE: "ok" status on domains (and other objects)

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:15:32 -0500

> Quick question:
> 
> The "ok" status is server-managed, and is said that it cannot 
> occur with
> other statuses.  Does this mean it is implicitly removed when a client
> attempts to set any status, like clientHold, and will return 
> implicitly
> when no other status values are set?  If so, can the protocol draft
> explicitly state this?
> 
> Having it be implicit seems like an implementation choice.  I would
> rather see it removed explicitly, or go away all together, 
> which means an
> object without any status is automatically "ok".

We need to understand something: the protocol documents have almost
completed IESG review.  I don't have a lot of liberty in making changes to
documents that have completed both WG and IETF-wide last calls (other than
dealing with editorial issues) unless _serious_ issues are discovered.  In
my mind, _serious_ means that a large number of WG participants agree that
something needs to be changed _now_ and the chairs declare that we have
consensus on the need for such a change.

The answer to your first question is "yes".  I will _try_ to deal with
wordsmithing the text to more fully explain that the default "ok" status is
set and unset as a result of other explicit status-setting operations.  I'm
not open to the idea of changing status behavior unless we enter into the
_serious_ issue state as described above.

-Scott-

---

From: Michael Graff <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 17:09:56 +0000

> consensus on the need for such a change.

I'd argue that the ROID stuff is a serious issue, BTW.  :)  Making the ok
and inactive states "automatic" doesn't seem like a huge issue, nor does
it seem to be different than what the draft expects.

> _serious_ issue state as described above.

I sort of assumed the wordsmithing route would happen.

--Michael