Hello, On 3/31/17 17:24, Gould, James wrote:
> ... > > Thanks for the response. My feedback is embedded below. I’ve updated > the proposal based on your feedback: > > 1. The <contact:chg> sub-elements do have replace semantics > > a. Existing sub-element data deleted first and then set with > updated data. > > b. This includes the <contact:postalInfo>, <contact:voice>, > <contact:fax>, <contact:email>, <contact:authInfo>, and the > <contact:disclose> elements. > > c. Servers with special policies regarding contact data > modifications should check the new data for any actual changes in > relevant fields. > > 2. The typed <contact:postalInfo> elements (“int” or “loc”) are > treated independently > > a. Exclusion of a <contact:postalInfo> type (“int” or “loc”) > does not implicitly delete it > > 3. The typed <contact:postalInfo> element (“int” or “loc”) is > deleted explicitly via an empty element > > a. <contact:postalInfo type=”int”/> or <contact:postalInfo > type=”loc”/> > > b. The same applies to deleting the voice or the fax via an > empty element (<contact:voice/> or <contact:fax/>) Sorry to pick up this discussion from three years ago, but I was wondering: has this language ever made it into an "official" IETF publication? It's not in RFC 5733, and there's no successor for RFC 5733 either. Currently, the only way to find this online is via this mailing list's archive. I'm asking because, as a registrar, we're still seeing lots of different contact update implementations in the wild, and even larger registries seem to be struggling with getting this right. Best regards, Thomas Corte -- 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
