Jody, I replied to Michael previously, but the intent of the "none" impact option is to cover the available use case for a system that is associated with the maintenance and doesn't imply the inclusion of systems that are not associated with the maintenance. In this case, the system under maintenance may not have any impact to availability, but there may be logic changes that the client needs to be aware of that is the purpose of the maintenance notification.
-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 4/7/21, 8:11 AM, "Jody Kolker" <jkol...@godaddy.com> wrote: Hi Jim and Michael, Thanks for your feedback. I tend to agree that adding "none" would require all systems of the registry to be listed for each maintenance. It seems that each system within the registry would need to be listed within the maintenance that are not affected by the maintenance such as the customer support phone system, SFTP or FTP service, marketing portals, reporting portals, customer service portals etc. I might be tying a little to much in here. Thoughts? Thanks, Jody Kolker. -----Original Message----- From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Bauland Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:26 AM To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12.txt Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Hi Jim, On 06.04.2021 21:39, Gould, James wrote: > Tobias, > > > > I have one more proposed change to the draft upon further review. For > the <maint:impact> element, no impact to availability is not covered. > My recommendation is to add support for the “none” value, I do not think "none" is too useful in this context and could even cause confusion. Shouldn't every system that is not included in the list automatically be not affected? What would be the consequence of having "none" there? In my opinion this then requires the registry to list each system in every maintenance notification. Otherwise one might wonder what is the difference between, e.g., <maint:name>Whois</maint:name> <maint:host>whois.registry.example</maint:host> <maint:impact>none</maint:impact> and just omitting the Whois entry. I think in e-mails from the registry it can make sense to add something like "DNS is not affected by our maintenance" to put the reading registrar at ease, but in an automated notification I do not see the value. If it's not mentioned, it's not affected. Best regards, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: michael.baul...@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: michael.baul...@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bRq_GiwNaKdJfsrunT5ES1Cj_ykDCbj52Q_sMe-hwkZ6R-3vUNU8b7cjya-8AW6Kwg2KbYlGzhiLM7tXvVb1KyGal4yHAYNRwUBrDBb8FF6VhfB2BRajHigbK9sAwYVaYHr1mIcPIpSFrRpVaqsRXU6WEjl9oSx898Tf1ytMRXN4UmKJp8PDODAb1OR6ez0fFtYUNQd37LXtiDwrHj4_9AdkiwVvY7T9ilwqbCuxVqkSyWVjNSeAjQDLLQsBlwJs/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
