Hello Roger, On 23/03/2017 16:31, Roger D Carney wrote:
> Good Morning, > > Thanks for the comments Thomas! > > I will look at the consistency of the error codes in sections 3.2 and 5.1.1. > > As far as the text in the "avail" section you mention, I think this was > meant as some combination of these items makes it invalid, not > necessarily that a single item is invalid. I will look at wording to clarify. Ok, that makes sense. > Thanks for catching the mismatch on the <fee:command>. Before updating > the scheme I think it would be good to have the discussion on if this > functionality is needed/wanted: would it be useful for the client to be > able to not pass a <fee:command> in the <check> command? While it is useful to perform a quick check for every available command, it could lead to very large check responses, given that each of the inferred commands would implicitly also have a "wildcard" launch phase, meaning that the server would have to return fees for all combinations of available commands and launch phases. Combined with multiple names to check, this could cause a lot of processing effort on the server side. I'd be in favor of keeping the requirement to explicitly specify commands. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
