Dear Benjamin, I've included my feedbacks inline and removed the clarified items.
Regards, Linlin Linlin Zhou > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Second, I am unsure of the semantics relating to role types, especially as > they interact with the <update> command. Various aspects of the examples > seem to imply that it is only permitted to have at most one organization > mapping of a given role type (i.e., one reseller, one proxy, etc.). In > particular, the <orgext:chg> element seems to be using the <orgext:id> role > attribute to determine which <orgext:id> is being changed (with the new > value being provided in the element body), and the <orgext:rem> element is > providing <orgext:id> with only the role attribute and no body to identify > a specific organization to remove. If this reading of the document is > correct, then I would expect the limitation to be called out more clearly, > especially as it would seem to prevent a domain owner from (e.g.) using > multiple DNS service operators. > [Linlin] In the normal business model, for example a domain should have one > reseller, one registrar etc. How about adding some text like "One > <orgext:id> element is suggested for each role type." in the element > description. I don't think that addresses my core concern (though it is probably worth doing in its own right). In particular, if it is allowed by the protocol/registry to have more than one <orgext:id> element of a given role type, then several of the protocol exchanges this document defines within <update> are not fully defined in an interoperable fashion. For example, what if I receive a <orgext:chg><orgext:id role="dns-operator>dns872</orgext:id></orgext:chg> and there are currently two dns-operators defined? Do I remove both existing entries and add the one new one? Do I remove just one existing entry and replace it with the new one? If the latter, how do I pick which one is to be removed? I just don't see how the operation is fully specified for these cases. [Linlin] We have discussed the error cases, but may lack of this situation. If there are already multiple IDs exist with a particular role, I suggest not changing the object and returning an error code 2305 which means "Object association prohibits operation". Maybe some words like "An attempt to change an organization ID with a particular role value, when multiple IDs exist with the same role value, does not change the object at all. A server SHOULD notify clients that object relationships need to be checked by sending a 2305 error response code. "
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
