Re: I-D on Uniform Treatment of Pending Action Notification in EPP
janusz sienkiewicz <janusz <at> libertyrms.info>
2002-08-01 14:50:10 GMT
I can not fully evalue Scott's proposal untill it is presented in a formal way
with all its implications on epp document and all associated object mapping
documents. I can only express opinion about the direction he is taking for
handling 'Pending Action Notification'.
I think a good and comprehensive example for handling 'Pending Action' can be
found in <transfer> command. It make sense to solve any 'Pending Action'
situation in a manner similiar to <transfer> (to a reasonable extent). What I
can see from Scott's proposal he is making steps in that direction.
"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:
> > When I wrote the draft at the beginning, I was actually
> > thinking exactly
> > your way since the pending action is performed on a specific
> > object mapping.
> > But after I finished the writing, I realized that I have to
> > add <paData> to
> > every object mapping (i.e., domain, contact, and host) that
> > may need this
> > feature. The advantage for doing so, as you explained, is
> > that more object
> > specific information can be added in. The downside is that
> > <paData> will
> > have to be defined in every object mapping (existing and