headers
Hollenbeck, Scott | 2 Aug 2006 15:14
Picon
Favicon

One More Clarification

I just sent the -03 versions of 3731bis and 3733bis to the I-D
administrator.  I found one more needed clarification in my work queue
that I missed earlier.  from Appendix A:

'Changed text in Section 3.1.3 from "A <domain:acID> element that
contains the identifier of the client that SHOULD act upon the transfer
request" to "A <domain:acID> element that contains the identifier of the
client that SHOULD act upon a PENDING transfer request.  For all other
status types, the value identifies the client that took the indicated
action".'

As far as I know this completes the needed document updates.  I'll
finish the implementation report next.

-Scott-
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hollenbeck, Scott | 21 Aug 2006 16:53
Picon
Favicon

Implementation Report Findings

I've started writing the implementation report needed to move the EPP
documents from Proposed Standard status to Draft Standard Status.  While
looking at the implementation test matrix that was described on the list
some time ago, I found that there's only one feature that no one has
reported testing: use of the "roid" attribute when doing a domain
transfer.

Has anyone implemented this feature?  We need to document a successful
client-server test if this feature is to remain in the protocol.  If we
can't document a successful test, it's supposed to be removed before the
domain mapping (3731/3731bis) can advance.  That means a schema change,
protocol version revision, etc.

Please reply here if you've implemented this feature.

-Scott-
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Patrick Mevzek | 21 Aug 2006 17:30

Re: Implementation Report Findings

Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck <at> verisign.com> 2006-08-21 17:09
> some time ago, I found that there's only one feature that no one has
> reported testing: use of the "roid" attribute when doing a domain
> transfer.

[..]

> Please reply here if you've implemented this feature.

Implemented in my client, see
http://search.cpan.org/src/PMEVZEK/Net-DRI-0.30/lib/Net/DRI/Protocol/EPP/Core/Domain.pm
function transfer_request (line 505)
adding authInfo in line 517,
including roid if it was provided.

I do not know which registries implements it,
nor which registrars use it.

--

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Klaus Malorny | 22 Aug 2006 10:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Implementation Report Findings

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> I've started writing the implementation report needed to move the EPP
> documents from Proposed Standard status to Draft Standard Status.  While
> looking at the implementation test matrix that was described on the list
> some time ago, I found that there's only one feature that no one has
> reported testing: use of the "roid" attribute when doing a domain
> transfer.
> 
> Has anyone implemented this feature?  We need to document a successful
> client-server test if this feature is to remain in the protocol.  If we
> can't document a successful test, it's supposed to be removed before the
> domain mapping (3731/3731bis) can advance.  That means a schema change,
> protocol version revision, etc.
> 
> Please reply here if you've implemented this feature.
> 
> -Scott-
> 

Hi Scott,

although this feature is obviously not implemented anywhere, I personally would 
not remove it, simply because of the symmetry and the "E" in EPP. Being 
implemented somewhere is not a good indication of being worth to be supported in 
future versions of the protocol anyway. For example, the "ok" status value is 
likely implemented by all registries, but it is factually completely useless, as 
there would be no loss of information if it is simply omitted.

Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Elias Sidenbladh | 22 Aug 2006 11:23
Picon

RE: Implementation Report Findings

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> I've started writing the implementation report needed to move 
> the EPP documents from Proposed Standard status to Draft 
> Standard Status.  While looking at the implementation test 
> matrix that was described on the list some time ago, I found 
> that there's only one feature that no one has reported 
> testing: use of the "roid" attribute when doing a domain transfer.
> 
> Has anyone implemented this feature?  We need to document a 
> successful client-server test if this feature is to remain in 
> the protocol.  If we can't document a successful test, it's 
> supposed to be removed before the domain mapping 
> (3731/3731bis) can advance.  That means a schema change, 
> protocol version revision, etc.
> 
> Please reply here if you've implemented this feature.
> 
> -Scott-
> 
> 

Hi all,

The .se EPP-server (that is not in production yet) have implemented this.

Regards,
Elias Sidenbladh
--
Internet Infrastructure Foundation (former NIC-SE)
Tel:+46-8-4523536
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Asbjorn S. Mikkelsen | 22 Aug 2006 12:04

Re: Implementation Report Findings

Scott,

Using the "roid" attribute in domain transfer is supported on .name. I
am not sure if any registrars have ever used this feature, though.

Asbjorn

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 10:53 -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> I've started writing the implementation report needed to move the EPP
> documents from Proposed Standard status to Draft Standard Status.  While
> looking at the implementation test matrix that was described on the list
> some time ago, I found that there's only one feature that no one has
> reported testing: use of the "roid" attribute when doing a domain
> transfer.
> 
> Has anyone implemented this feature?  We need to document a successful
> client-server test if this feature is to remain in the protocol.  If we
> can't document a successful test, it's supposed to be removed before the
> domain mapping (3731/3731bis) can advance.  That means a schema change,
> protocol version revision, etc.
> 
> Please reply here if you've implemented this feature.
> 
> -Scott-

--

-- 
Asbjorn Steira Mikkelsen <asteira <at> gnr.com>
The Global Name Registry, Limited
_____________________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hollenbeck, Scott | 22 Aug 2006 13:00
Picon
Favicon

RE: Implementation Report Findings

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se] On Behalf Of Asbjorn S. Mikkelsen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:05 AM
> To: ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Findings
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Using the "roid" attribute in domain transfer is supported on .name. I
> am not sure if any registrars have ever used this feature, though.

OK, it's good to hear that there are a multiple implementations.  What
we need, though, is to confirm that testing between at least two
implementations has taken place.  Is there anyone out there that has
tested against one or more of the server implementations?  If Patrick
has a client, is there a server operator that could work with him to
test this feature?

-Scott-
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Hollenbeck, Scott | 22 Aug 2006 13:06
Picon
Favicon

RE: Implementation Report Findings

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:Klaus.Malorny <at> knipp.de] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:50 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Findings
> 
> although this feature is obviously not implemented anywhere, 
> I personally would 
> not remove it, simply because of the symmetry and the "E" in 
> EPP. Being 
> implemented somewhere is not a good indication of being worth 
> to be supported in 
> future versions of the protocol anyway. For example, the "ok" 
> status value is 
> likely implemented by all registries, but it is factually 
> completely useless, as 
> there would be no loss of information if it is simply omitted.

We don't have a choice, Klaus.  From section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026, second
paragraph:

"In cases in which one or more options or features have not been
demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the
specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those
options or features are removed."

Others have confirmed that implementations exist.  Now we need the
"demonstrated" part.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Elias Sidenbladh | 22 Aug 2006 13:17
Picon

RE: Implementation Report Findings

Our inhouse registrar (not in production yet) uses Net::DRI, we have also automated the tests of the
EPP-server using Net::EPP::Client. Don't know if that counts... 

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

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se
> > [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se] On Behalf Of Asbjorn 
> S. Mikkelsen
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:05 AM
> > To: ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Findings
> > 
> > Scott,
> > 
> > Using the "roid" attribute in domain transfer is supported 
> on .name. I 
> > am not sure if any registrars have ever used this feature, though.
> 
> OK, it's good to hear that there are a multiple 
> implementations.  What we need, though, is to confirm that 
> testing between at least two implementations has taken place.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hollenbeck, Scott | 22 Aug 2006 13:21
Picon
Favicon

RE: Implementation Report Findings

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elias Sidenbladh [mailto:Elias.Sidenbladh <at> iis.se] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:18 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Asbjorn S. Mikkelsen; ietf-provreg <at> cafax.se
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Findings
> 
> Our inhouse registrar (not in production yet) uses Net::DRI, 
> we have also automated the tests of the EPP-server using 
> Net::EPP::Client. Don't know if that counts... 

It could, as long as the two implementations were developed
independently.  Can you confirm that this specific feature was tested
successfully, Elias?

-Scott-
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane