Subject: [ietf-provreg] 3731bis Submitted

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:27:45 -0400

I just sent the -00 version of 3731bis to the I-D administrator for
publication.  Here's the list of changes copied from Appendix A:

1.  Minor reformatting as a result of converting I-D source format
    from nroff to XML.

2.  Removed this text from Section 2.3:

    "With one exception, transform commands MUST be rejected when a
    pendingCreate, pendingDelete, pendingRenew, pendingTransfer, or
    pendingUpdate status is set.  The only exception is that a
    <transfer> command to approve, reject, or cancel a transfer MAY
    be processed while an object is in "pendingTransfer" status."

3.  Changed text in Section 3.2.1.4 from "At least one <domain:add>,
    <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element MUST be provided." to "At
    least one <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element
    MUST be provided if the command is not being extended.  All of
    these elements MAY be omitted if an <update> extension is
    present.".

4.  Renumbered old section 3.2.6 to new section 3.3.

5.  Changed text in Section 3.3 (old Section 3.2.6) from this:

    "The server operator reviews the request offline, and informs the
    client of the outcome of the review by queuing a service message
    for retrieval via the <poll> command."

    to this:

    "The server operator reviews the request offline, and informs the
    client of the outcome of the review by either queuing a service
    message for retrieval via the <poll> command or by using an out-
    of-band mechanism to inform the client of the request."

6.  Updated EPP and XML references.

I need to make a change to 3732bis and 3733bis to deal with the same
text as described above in item #5, but I'll do that after giving people
some time to read the documents and check them again.

I believe this set of updates (3730bis - 3734bis) captures all of the
changes that the members of this mailing list have agreed to.  Please
let me know if something has been missed.

-Scott-

---

From: "Michael Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:48:02 -0400

Scott so far these changes look like they address the raised issues.

Thank you for the effort, its much appreciated. 

Michael Young 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ietf-provreg] 3731bis Submitted

    to this:

I need to make a change to 3732bis and 3733bis to deal with the same text as
described above in item #5, but I'll do that after giving people some time
to read the documents and check them again.

I believe this set of updates (3730bis - 3734bis) captures all of the
changes that the members of this mailing list have agreed to.  Please let me
know if something has been missed.

-Scott-

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:35:29 +0200

Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]> 2005-09-09 20:31
>     these elements MAY be omitted if an <update> extension is

After this goes in, should the RFC3915 also be updated, as section
4.2.5.  EPP <update> Command
currently has:
   Section 3.2.5 of the EPP domain mapping describes the elements
   that have to be specified within an <update> command.  The requirement
   to provide at least one <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg>
   element is updated by this extension such that at least one empty
   <domain:add>, <domain:rem>, or <domain:chg> element MUST be
   present if this extension is specified within an <update> command.  This
   requirement is updated to disallow the possibility of modifying a
   domain object as part of redemption grace period recovery
   processing.

If I understand everything correctly, an empty <domain:update> should
be enough ?

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>