Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-org-11: (with COMMENT)

2018-11-11 Thread Linlin Zhou
Dear Benjamin,
I have confirmed with others about this wording. Your understanding is right 
that "service message" means using the  mechanism. So I suggest changing 
the text in section 4.3 like,
The server operator reviews the request offline, and MUST inform the client of 
the outcome of the review either by queuing a service message for retrieval via 
the  command and MAY use an out-of-band mechanism to inform the client of 
the outcome.

Regards,
Linlin


Linlin Zhou
 
From: Linlin Zhou
Date: 2018-11-01 10:57
To: Benjamin Kaduk
CC: regext-chairs; Pieter Vandepitte; iesg; regext; draft-ietf-regext-org
Subject: Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-org-11: (with COMMENT)
Dear Benjamin,
I re-read the two paragraphs again and again. And I think I have the thought in 
mind that "service message" may be the key words to make you confused. 
In section 4.2, "the client MUST be notified using a service message", this 
"service message" has a relatively broad meaning, that it means the in-band or 
out-or-band service message. And "MUST" means you must send the message whether 
online or offline to the client.
If the above understanding is proper, In section 4.3 "either by queuing a 
service message for retrieval via the  command...", this "service 
message" is not specified for  excusively. 
Of course, I'll try to confirm with other EPP experts in parallel.

Regards,
Linlin


Linlin Zhou
 
From: Linlin Zhou
Date: 2018-10-31 13:45
To: Benjamin Kaduk
CC: regext-chairs; Pieter Vandepitte; iesg; regext; draft-ietf-regext-org
Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-regext-org-11: (with COMMENT)
Dear Benjamin,
Please see my feedbacks below.

Regards,
Linlin


Linlin Zhou
 

> > --
> > COMMENT:
> > --
> > Section 4.3
> > 
> >The status of the organization object after returning this response
> >MUST include "pendingCreate".  The server operator reviews the
> >request offline, and informs the client of the outcome of the review
> >either by queuing a service message for retrieval via the 
> >command or by using an out-of-band mechanism to inform the client of
> >the request.
> >  
> > I don't think the "either" is appropriate; the earlier text *requires* the
> > service message, and allows for additional optional notification
> > mechanisms.
> >  [Linlin] This mechanism is supported in section 2.9.2.3 of RFC5730. 
> > So this is a easy and convinient way to inform the clients.
>  
> I'm saying that the choice for the server is not "do X or do Y", it's: "do
> X, then either do Y or don't do Y".  The word "either" here implies that it
> is sometimes acceptable to not do X (where X is the queuing of the service
> message).
> [Linlin] In my understanding, I think the text means do X or do Y. You can 
> have two choices to inform the result by  of EPP command or by 
> out-of-band actions. The following  response is an example using  
> mechanism. Of course you can also send an email to to contact of the 
> organization.
> The text is consistent with EPP RFCs. Maybe we can ask the author to confirm:)
> 
 
Perhaps I am misreading, but I see this text in Section 4.2 that says that
the server MUST always send a service message to notify the client:
 
   Once
   the action has been completed, the client MUST be notified using a
   service message that the action has been completed and that the
   status of the object has changed.  Other notification methods MAY be
   used in addition to the required service message..
 
The text here in Section 4.3 says:
 
   The status of the organization object after returning this response
   MUST include "pendingCreate".  The server operator reviews the
   request offline, and informs the client of the outcome of the review
   either by queuing a service message for retrieval via the 
   command or by using an out-of-band mechanism to inform the client of
   the request.
 
which would allow either the service message, or an out-of-band mechanism,
or both mechanisms used together.
 
My issue with the document is that the document is internally inconsistent
-- in Section 4.2 it says "always do X", but Section 4.3 contradicts that
by saying "you could do X, or you could not do X and do Y instead".  An
implementor has to pick whether to believe Section 4.2 or Section 4.3, and
we should not force them to make such a choice.

[Linlin] I can understand your concerns now. I think I had better propose a 
thread and ask the author or other EPP experts for confirmation. Once I get the 
feedback, I'll have a response. Thank you.
 

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


Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-11-11 Thread Linlin Zhou
Dear Benjamin,
James provided his suggestions and I'd like to include them in the updated 
text. I think this is the last issue we have and please see if these changes 
workable for you.

1. In section 3.1 Organization Identifier, add sentences at the end of this 
paragraph. 
A "role" attribute is used to represent the relationship that the organization 
has to the EPP object. Any given object MUST have at most one associated 
organization ID for any given role value. 

2. In section 4.1.2,
Zero or more  elements are allowed that contain the identifier of 
the organization, as defined in [section 3.1]. The "role" attribute is used to 
represent the relationship that the organization has to the object. See Section 
7.3 in [ID.draft-ietf-regext-org] for a list of values.

3. In section 4.2.1, 
One or more  elements that contain the identifier of the 
organization, as defined in [section 3.1]. The "role" attribute is used to 
represent the relationship that the organization has to the object. See Section 
7.3 in [ID.draft-ietf-regext-org] for a list of values. 

4. In section 4.2.5,
 o  An OPTIONAL  element that contains one or more  
elements, as defined in [section 3.1], that add non-existent organization roles 
to the object. The  element MUST have a non-empty organization 
identifier value.  The server SHOULD validate that the  element role 
does not exist. 
 
   o  An OPTIONAL  element that contains one or more  
elements, as defined in [section 3.1], that remove organization roles from the 
object. The  element MAY have an empty organization identifier 
value.  The server SHOULD validate the existence of the  element 
role and the organization identifier if provided. 
 
   o  An OPTIONAL  element that one or more  elements, 
as defined in [section 3.1], that change organization role identifiers for the 
object. The existing organization identifier value will be replaced for the 
defined role.  The server SHOULD validate the existence of the  
element role. 

At least one ,  or  element MUST be 
provided. The ,  and  elements contain the 
following child element:

o One or more  elements that contain the identifier of the 
organization. The "role" attribute is used to represent the relationship that 
the organization has to the object. Any given object MUST have at most one 
associated organization ID for any given role value. See Section 7.3 in 
[ID.draft-ietf-regext-org] for a list of values.

Regards,
Linlin


Linlin Zhou
 
From: Linlin Zhou
Date: 2018-11-06 09:18
To: jgould; ka...@mit.edu
CC: regext-chairs; Pieter Vandepitte; iesg; regext; draft-ietf-regext-org-ext
Subject: Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: 
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi James,
Thanks for your further suggestions. I'll include them in the updated version.

Regards,
Linlin


zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
 
From: Gould, James
Date: 2018-11-02 20:25
To: ka...@mit.edu; zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
CC: regext-cha...@ietf.org; pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be; i...@ietf.org; 
regext@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-org-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-09: 
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
I believe that we need to ensure that the 1-on-1 organization role mapping is 
consistently defined in the draft.  The definition of the "role" attribute, the 
possible value can be referenced in section 7.3, and the relationship between 
the organization id and the role should certainly be defined in section 3.1.  
The definition in 3.1 can be referenced in the create (4.2.1) and info (4.1.2), 
as in "One or more  elements that contain the identifier of the 
organization, as defined in [section 3.1]."  The update (4.2.5) is a little bit 
more complex to provide clarity on the behavior of the , 
 and the .  The following bullet could be removed from 
the update (4.2.5):
 
One or more  elements that contain the identifier of
the organization.  The "role" attribute is used to represent the
relationship that the organization has to the object.  See
Section 7.3 in [ID.draft-ietf-regext-org] for a list of values.
 
The reference to the  child elements and the expected behavior can 
be embedded under the definition of the , , and 
 elements, such as:
 
   o  An OPTIONAL  element that contains one or more  
elements, as defined in [section 3.1], that add non-existent organization roles 
to the object.  The  element MUST have a non-empty organization 
identifier value.  The server SHOULD validate that the  element role 
does not exist.  
 
   o  An OPTIONAL  element that contains one or more  
elements, as defined in [section 3.1], that remove organization roles from the 
object.  The  element MAY have an empty organization identifier 
value.  The server SHOULD validate the existence of the  element 
role and the organization identifier if provided.  
 
   o  An OPTIONAL  element that one or more  elements, 
as defined in [section 3.1], that change organization role identifiers for the 
object.  The ex