Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Implementation Test Matrix

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:14:44 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:51 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Implementation Test Matrix
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

[snip]

> > There's another party to consider: the server operator.  
> It's important
> > for them -- and I can guarantee that registrars WILL care 
> if there are
> > financial consequences for transactions repeatedly sent in error.
> > 
> 
> Ah, come on. The registry is not responsible for the errors 
> that are done by the 
> registrar. If a registrar accidentally deletes a domain and 
> has to restore it 
> for big money, you are happy about this, aren't you?

We're continuing a walk through the weeds that has nothing to do with
the test matrix, so this will be the last I have to say about it.

A registry has to build and support servers that can handle whatever
registrars throw at them, such as hundreds or thousands of the exact
same command sent over a short period of time in an attempt to register
a name.  We also have to have customer service people available to help
registrars when mistakes are made.  This isn't about accidently deleting
a domain, it's about submitting the same renew request multiple times,
for example, when only one is really wanted.  If more than one is
accepted by the registry, but the registrar only wanted one, the cost to
all goes up.  Not allowing it to happen in the first place helps keep
the cost down.

-Scott-

---

From: janusz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:51:52 -0400

Some registrars in their clients implementations don't rely on 
idempotency in EPP protocol and I can understand that the feature does 
not help them in any way. However there is a large group of registrars 
who explicitly or implicitly depend on the feature. Without idempotency 
enforced on the server side the ratio of registrars complains obout 
transform commands submitted "by mistake" would increase significantly. 
That would eventually lead to higher client implementation and 
maintenance cost. I would certainly not recommend removing idempotency 
requirement from EPP protocol. The feature IMO brings overall more value 
to EPP client than servers implementers and operators.

Janusz Sienkiewicz