[regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

[Santosh K Kalsangrah]

Greeting EPP authors/users,

Seeking your input on EPP contact element . Could you 
please share if there any EPP way to remove "int" or "loc" postalinfo from a 
contact having both postalinfo types associated.

Referred EPP contact mapping RFC 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5733#section-3.2.5 ) but there is no 
information of how can this done.


Thanks in advance,
Santosh Kalsangrah









NOTE: This message may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, 
privileged or otherwise protected by law. The message is intended solely for 
the named addressee. If received in error, please destroy and notify the 
sender. Any use of this email is prohibited when received in error. Impetus 
does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee, that the integrity of this 
communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, 
virus, interception or interference.
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

The XML schema requires at least one instance and at most two instances of the 
postalInfo element. The "type" attribute (whose value is either "int" or "loc") 
is required, but you don't have to have both types present. You can always 
remove one or the other.



Having said that, I don't think I'm answering your question. Could you please 
share examples of the state you're starting with and the state you're trying to 
achieve?



Scott



From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Santosh K Kalsangrah
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:08 AM
To: epp...@ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact



Greeting EPP authors/users,



Seeking your input on EPP contact element . Could you 
please share if there any EPP way to remove "int" or "loc" postalinfo from a 
contact having both postalinfo types associated.



Referred EPP contact mapping RFC 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5733#section-3.2.5 ) but there is no 
information of how can this done.





Thanks in advance,

Santosh Kalsangrah





  _







NOTE: This message may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, 
privileged or otherwise protected by law. The message is intended solely for 
the named addressee. If received in error, please destroy and notify the 
sender. Any use of this email is prohibited when received in error. Impetus 
does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee, that the integrity of this 
communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, 
virus, interception or interference.

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

[Gould, James]

Scott,

I believe the issue is that the only reference to  in the 
 command is under the  element.  I don’t believe 
the absence of a  element of a specific type (“int” or 
“loc”) under  indicates an implicit delete.  Consider the use case:


1.  Create a contact via  with a single 

2.  How do you replace the  with 
 via the ?

a.   Is it done by the inclusion of  in the 
, where the inclusion of at least one  
elements does an implicit change of all of the postal info data thus implicitly 
deleting  with ?

Santosh brings up a similar use case of initially setting both 
 types in the .  What it comes down to is 
whether inclusion of the  element(s) under the 
 of the  only changes the attributes of the 
specific types included or does it change all postal info data with an implicit 
delete and replace.

—

JG

[cid:image001.png@01D285D3.CC4E1A70]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com

From: regext  on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" 

Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:18 AM
To: "'santosh.kalsang...@impetus.co.in'" , 
"'regext@ietf.org'" 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

The XML schema requires at least one instance and at most two instances of the 
postalInfo element. The “type” attribute (whose value is either “int” or “loc”) 
is required, but you don’t have to have both types present. You can always 
remove one or the other.

Having said that, I don’t think I’m answering your question. Could you please 
share examples of the state you’re starting with and the state you’re trying to 
achieve?

Scott

From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Santosh K Kalsangrah
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:08 AM
To: epp...@ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

Greeting EPP authors/users,

Seeking your input on EPP contact element . Could you 
please share if there any EPP way to remove “int” or “loc” postalinfo from a 
contact having both postalinfo types associated.

Referred EPP contact mapping RFC 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5733#section-3.2.5 ) but there is no 
information of how can this done.


Thanks in advance,
Santosh Kalsangrah









NOTE: This message may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, 
privileged or otherwise protected by law. The message is intended solely for 
the named addressee. If received in error, please destroy and notify the 
sender. Any use of this email is prohibited when received in error. Impetus 
does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee, that the integrity of this 
communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, 
virus, interception or interference.
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

Jim, the change option should be interpreted as “completely replace old value 
with this new value”. Whatever postalInfo is provided with an update should 
completely replace whatever was there before. Looking at the use case you 
described, yes, you can replace  with 
 by including the “loc” value in the 
 element. If that’s not clear it’s only because I didn’t think the 
meaning of “change” was ambiguous. That’s why there’s nothing there to 
selectively identify the values to be altered – “change” means “completely 
replace”.



Scott



From: Gould, James
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; 
'santosh.kalsang...@impetus.co.in' ; 
'regext@ietf.org' 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a 
contact



Scott,



I believe the issue is that the only reference to  in the 
 command is under the  element.  I don’t believe 
the absence of a  element of a specific type (“int” or 
“loc”) under  indicates an implicit delete.  Consider the use case:



1.  Create a contact via  with a single 

2.  How do you replace the  with 
 via the ?

a.   Is it done by the inclusion of  in the 
, where the inclusion of at least one  
elements does an implicit change of all of the postal info data thus implicitly 
deleting  with ?



Santosh brings up a similar use case of initially setting both 
 types in the .  What it comes down to is 
whether inclusion of the  element(s) under the 
 of the  only changes the attributes of the 
specific types included or does it change all postal info data with an implicit 
delete and replace.



—



JG




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com



From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" 
mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>>
Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:18 AM
To: "'santosh.kalsang...@impetus.co.in'" 
mailto:santosh.kalsang...@impetus.co.in>>, 
"'regext@ietf.org'" mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact



The XML schema requires at least one instance and at most two instances of the 
postalInfo element. The “type” attribute (whose value is either “int” or “loc”) 
is required, but you don’t have to have both types present. You can always 
remove one or the other.



Having said that, I don’t think I’m answering your question. Could you please 
share examples of the state you’re starting with and the state you’re trying to 
achieve?



Scott



From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Santosh K Kalsangrah
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:08 AM
To: epp...@ietf.org; 
regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact



Greeting EPP authors/users,



Seeking your input on EPP contact element . Could you 
please share if there any EPP way to remove “int” or “loc” postalinfo from a 
contact having both postalinfo types associated.



Referred EPP contact mapping RFC 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5733#section-3.2.5 ) but there is no 
information of how can this done.





Thanks in advance,

Santosh Kalsangrah





  _







NOTE: This message may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, 
privileged or otherwise protected by law. The message is intended solely for 
the named addressee. If received in error, please destroy and notify the 
sender. Any use of this email is prohibited when received in error. Impetus 
does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee, that the integrity of this 
communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, 
virus, interception or interference.

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

[Thomas Corte]

Hello,

On 13/02/2017 14:59, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> Jim, the change option should be interpreted as “completely replace old
> value with this new value”. Whatever postalInfo is provided with an
> update should completely replace whatever was there before. Looking at
> the use case you described, yes, you can replace  type=”int”> with  by including the “loc”
> value in the  element. If that’s not clear it’s only because
> I didn’t think the meaning of “change” was ambiguous. That’s why there’s
> nothing there to selectively identify the values to be altered – “change”
> means “completely replace”.

If the idea were to completely replace all postal info by whatever
 elements are specified in the  element, then there
would be no point in having a special - potentially completely empty -
"chgPostalInfoType" type in the schema there, since it allows the
addition of incomplete address data that could result in schema
violations for  responses. This could just be
"postalInfoType" then to enforce the presence of mandatory fields.
This seems to indicate that the original idea was *not* a complete
replacement. This would otherwise also kind of contradict the way 
is interpreted for domains (RFC 5731), since it would imply that one
could not change a domain's registrant without also changing or removing
a domain's authinfo string.

Note that this topic has been discussed before, starting at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/current/msg07560.html
As a result of that discussion, our own EPP server implementation in the
TANGO Registry System does the following:

* if a  loc/int element is specified which is "empty"
  ("empty" being defined as: no org, no name, and mandatory address
  element "city" missing), the server removes that element from the
  contact
* if it is not empty, it completely replaces the respective loc/int data
* if the contact has loc/int data which is not present in the 
  element, that data is retained, i.e. *not* removed

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbHThomas Corte
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9   Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund  E-Mail: thomas.co...@knipp.de
Germany

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a contact

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Corte
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 9:28 AM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Query: Remove contact:postalInfo from a
> contact
>
> Hello,
>
> On 13/02/2017 14:59, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> > Jim, the change option should be interpreted as "completely replace
> > old value with this new value". Whatever postalInfo is provided with
> > an update should completely replace whatever was there before. Looking
> > at the use case you described, yes, you can replace
> >  with  by
> including the "loc"
> > value in the  element. If that's not clear it's only
> > because I didn't think the meaning of "change" was ambiguous. That's
> > why there's nothing there to selectively identify the values to be
> altered - "change"
> > means "completely replace".
>
> If the idea were to completely replace all postal info by whatever
>  elements are specified in the  element, then there would
> be no point in having a special - potentially completely empty -
> "chgPostalInfoType" type in the schema there, since it allows the addition
> of incomplete address data that could result in schema violations for
>  responses. This could just be "postalInfoType" then to
> enforce the presence of mandatory fields.
> This seems to indicate that the original idea was *not* a complete
> replacement. This would otherwise also kind of contradict the way  is
> interpreted for domains (RFC 5731), since it would imply that one could
> not change a domain's registrant without also changing or removing a
> domain's authinfo string.

My apologies. I wrote the text more than 15 years ago, and after looking 
through the documents again I see that you're correct. As written, the schema 
and text support selective change. I'm not sure why or how we ended up there, 
but that's what we have. At least I'm consistent in my memory of my intentions:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/current/msg07561.html

So back to the original question: I believe it's possible to remove one of the 
forms by replacing it with an empty value as described here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/current/msg07568.html

> 
>C20131114-01
>
>  
>
> 

It looks schema-legitimate to me since all of the child elements of 
 are optional.

Looking at all of this again I wish I had just used the same schema type for 
creates and updates and explicitly noted that a change is a 1-for-1 
replacement. That would seem to be much simpler.

Scott

Scott

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext