headers
Elias Sidenbladh | 15 May 2006 12:20
Picon

Regarding <poll> responses with <resData> tags

Hi Folks,

There are very few examples of <poll> responses in the EPP RFC:s and you can put anything in a <resData> tag
according to the schema files (as long as it belong to another namespace). 

Wouldn´t it be nice to standardize (at least some of) the poll responses as well or the implementations
might be as many as the tld:s who adopt the EPP standard, I.e. no standard?

Best Regards,
Elias Sidenbladh

Internet Infrastructure Foundation (former NIC-SE)
Tel:+46-8-4523536
Mob:+46-734-315309
Fax:+46-8-4523502
Email:elias.sidenbladh <at> iis.se
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Hollenbeck, Scott | 15 May 2006 13:14
Picon
Favicon

RE: Regarding <poll> responses with <resData> tags

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se] On Behalf Of Elias Sidenbladh
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 6:21 AM
> To: ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] Regarding <poll> responses with <resData> tags
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> There are very few examples of <poll> responses in the EPP 
> RFC:s and you can put anything in a <resData> tag according 
> to the schema files (as long as it belong to another namespace). 
> 
> Wouldn´t it be nice to standardize (at least some of) the 
> poll responses as well or the implementations might be as 
> many as the tld:s who adopt the EPP standard, I.e. no standard?

One of the reasons the standard currently is the way it is is because those kinds of messages are very
dependent on the individual implementations and the policies they emulate.  It may well be a nice idea to
try to standardize some of the responses, but I believe that will be a challenging (but not necessarily
impossible) task.

Someone who is interested should consider writing an I-D describing a proposal.  if there's common ground
that'll be the way to find it.

-Scott-
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James Gould | 15 May 2006 15:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: Regarding <poll> responses with <resData> tags

Elias,

I see the flexibility of what is contained in the poll messages as one area
of the extensibility in EPP.  We have converted all of our e-mail
notifications to EPP poll messages, but in doing so we have defined each in
an EPP specification along with examples.  RFC 3915 (Domain Registry Grace
Period Mapping for EPP) did not include a poll message definition, so we
created a custom specification (EPP RGP Poll Mapping) to cover this.  I do
agree that as new EPP specifications are created that there should be
thought into the poll messaging with adequate samples.

JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Senior Software Engineer
VeriSign Information Services
jgould <at> verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Klaus Malorny | 28 May 2006 14:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: RFC3731: domain:roid in <info> response

Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> i just noticed that the "roid" element in the response to a <domain:info>
> request is a mandatory element. However, it seems that the "roid" is not
> required in any other requests on domain objects, because all other
> transactions use the <domain:name> to identify a certain object instance.
> 
> So, is there a reason why the "roid" is not optional in the <info> response?
> And, any chance to change that in 3731bis? As it seems to me, we'd need to
> "leak" the internal id of a domain object to the client for just this single
> info-response - without any further use.
> 
> any insight appreciated.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Alex Mayrhofer
> nic.at

Hi Alex,

a bit late, but recently I rarely visit the folder where my e-mail agent moves 
the postings to ;-) . Anyhow, one use of the ROID was missing in the other 
responses, namely the use of the ROID in the authinfo element, as it is defined 
in the EPP specs.

With the puntCAT registry we (CORE) have implemented, we allow the use of ROIDs 
of different objects in info commands. This enables registrars to create copies 
of contacts of domains that they are going to transfer to them. Using the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane