On Thu, Jan 4, 2018, at 22:41, Gould, James wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> You will pleased to know that after attempting to write the new section
> describing the expected behavior for the state attribute, that I agree
> with you. How about the following text for the new State section 2.2?
It seems
Patrick,
You will pleased to know that after attempting to write the new section
describing the expected behavior for the state attribute, that I agree with
you. How about the following text for the new State section 2.2?
The state attribute reflects the state of the object "before" or "after"
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018, at 14:08, Gould, James wrote:
> I can add a subsection in section 2 to describe the expected before for
> both the create and the delete (purge) to ensure that the servers
> implement it consistently and the clients know what to expect. Do you
> agree?
I think we
Patrick,
As stated before, I do agree that the purging of the object either via the
“delete” operation with the “op” attribute set to “purge” or the “autopurge”
operation as a grey area, but the use of the “before” state is an optional
feature of the protocol that is not meant to be used for th
Hello James,
>> I am not sure to understand the example for the autopurge.
>> If the registry deletes a domain with an immediate purge I expect the
>> domain not to exist anymore. But in your example you show the "after"
>> state
>> and there you have a domain:name and a domai
Patrick,
Sorry again about the long delay in my review of your feedback. Thank you for
doing the detailed review. I include my responses to your feedback embedded
below.
—
JG
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Veri
James,
Same for this one.
Jim and I were going to send out a formal WGLC on this document, but we didn’t
see a reply to this extensive review yet.
What do you want us to do, wait for you to have treated Patrick’s comments, or
consider them as part of WGLC (Which may have a deadline)?
Jim and An
Hello James and Kal,
Here are my comments on the draft:
The abstract is almost longer than the introduction,
and I believe it should be the opposite.
I prefer this sentence in the abstract:
notifying clients of operations on client sponsored
objects that were not initiated by the client throu
