Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Anyone working on 4310-bis?

From: Ulrich Wisser <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:08:44 +0100

Why would the RFC have to define an order of execution? Can't that be
left to registry policy decision? As long as the order is consistent of
course.
At .SE we impose limits on several data elements (contacts per domain,
ip numbers per host). Therefor we execute rem first.

I vote for the dsDataType. It makes rem fully compatible to add. And
lessens the burden for implementors on both server and client sides.

If we drop backward compatibility we should drop chg as it doesn't match
the overall EPP interpretation of chg.

/Ulrich

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:26:37 -0500

> left to registry policy decision? As long as the order is consistent of

It has to be the order in which the commands are sent, otherwise it's
possible for someone to send the command removing all DS records with
a given keyTag, and then to add a new one with the same keyTag
(thereby effecting the wholesale replacement of a given DS) and
actually have the server process it as add,remove.  The upshot would
be, of course, that there would be no DS at that owner name, which is
not the client's intention.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.