Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:47:34 +0200 (MEST)

Thanks for the thoughts, Ed.

> I talked this over with the developers in-house - I'd (we'd) 
> recommend altering the pendingDelete rule (first option).

That's what I originally intended with 3915, but it may mean a text
change to 3731 to ensure that the intention is clear.  Not necessarily a
big deal.

> And, stepping back a bit, why have a "pendingX" if X can't be 
> prevented?  (I understand that there may be latency in doing X, but 
> as far as a protocol like EPP is concerned, why distinguish the 
> pending state?)

If I remember correctly (and it's possible I won't), all of the
"pending" stuff was added as a result of people wanting to allow some
sort of offline review/processing before some "final" state was entered.
I personally think it makes the protocol a little kludgy, but I believe
there was a need to try to match operational realities.

> Do you think that this change needs a re-spin at PS?  (Not that it 
> matters much, the "6-month delay" required as *one* of the steps to 
> DS was spent in the RFC editor queue last time we made it to PS. ;) ) 
> Maybe with a change like this we ought to dub it EPP 1.1.

We might be able to avoid a spin if we avoid schema changes. Text
changes alone might qualify as "clarifications".  Any change to the
schemas likely puts us in 1.1 territory.

-Scott-

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:54:49 +0200 (MEST)

>there was a need to try to match operational realities.

I hate it when reality gets in the way of a good protocol. ;)  I 
think you remember correctly though.  There was mention of 
non-near-real-time, off-line component to activities in the WG.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:28:59 +0200 (MEST)

> change to 3731 to ensure that the intention is clear.  Not necessarily a

Something that isn't clear to me -- and I know that Janusz disagrees
with me about this, and I'm not even sure what I think about it
myself -- but why does the pendingDelete status prevent other changes
on a domain?  If you want to prevent updates, why not add
serverUpdateProhibited too?  (The same goes for other pending status
values, and other objects.)

> sort of offline review/processing before some "final" state was entered.

Well, it's worth noting that the earliest I-D I have a copy of
(draft-ietf-provreg-epp-domain-00.txt) defines pendingDelete,
pendingTransfer, and pendingVerification, which seems to lend
credence to that memory.

I can say for sure that we have found some pending states convenient
for some cases.  It's particularly useful in ccTLDs, where there can
be an elaborate process review prior to a domain really being
created or updated or whatever.  You don't want to hold up the
protocol while you determine whether (for instance) a registrant has
the rights to a domain in that geographic region.  (One can think
what one wants about the utility of such policies; but it does seem
to be the policy in some places.)

A
-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:45:23 +0200 (MEST)

>to be the policy in some places.)

Pending states are definitely useful.  I don't think anyone wants to 
remove them from the protocol.

You are right (in text I removed) that preventing other actions while 
in pendingDelete is questionable.  That's what we ought to seek to 
change.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:53:29 +0200 (MEST)

Hi all,

As I think I mentioned before, I've been putting together an I-D that
outlines some of the experiences we've had at Afilias in implementing
EPP, and that makes some suggestions for what to change in the base
protocol or mapping documents to address troubles we've had.

The description of our experiences I'm totally comfortable with, but
I'm aware that some of the suggested changes are controversial.  I'm
not even sure they'd all be a good idea (I floated one here that got
an overwhelmingly negative reaction, for instance), but I thought I'd
make them avavilable ad discussion points.  In any case, I've put the
draft up at

http://www.afilias.info/news/events/draft-sullivan-epp-experience-00.txt

in case anyone is interested in it before the submission queue
re-opens after Paris.

Best regards,
Andrew