[Ietf-not43] any more comments for the requirements

[Rick Wesson]

andy,

sure that sounds like a reasonable requirement.

-rick

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Andrew Newton wrote:

> So, something like:
>
> Domains in this service MUST be capable of representing attributes and
> values of the domain objects in EPP.  Contacts in this service MUST be
> capable of representing attributes and values of the contact objects in
> EPP.  The status values indicating the state of a domain MUST be an
> equivalent set or superset to the status values indicating the state of
> a domain in EPP.
>
> Perhaps a little more massaged, but is that towards what you are after?
>
> -andy
>
> Rick Wesson wrote:
> >
> > The facts that EPP and CRISP both deal with the same objects I hope we can
> > use the same or simular language in the drafts to explain those objects.
> > If CRISP is to accurately publish information of those objects the terms
> > of the attributes and values SHOULD be as consitstant as possable.
> >
> > In piticular status values used in EPP status commands SHOULD be a subset
> > of the potential status values in the CRISP protocol.
> >
> > My request stems from http://lists.verisignlabs.com/pipermail/ietf-not43/2002-September/000238.html
> > and  http://lists.verisignlabs.com/pipermail/ietf-not43/2002-September/000239.html
> >
> >
> > -rick
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Rick,
> >>	It's a little unclear to me what you're asking for.  Are you
> >>asking that the language in the requirements draft that talks about
> >>domains etc. reference the provreg documents, or you asking that we
> >>require that protocol documents reference that language?  If it's the
> >>former and there are specific cases where you feel that the language
> >>does not match, a citation would be helpful to me and I'm sure to
> >>others as well.
> >>	Also, I'm not sure why language around status codes would fit
> >>into this group.  The status codes themselves would not be shared
> >>between the two protocols.  The whole range of <update> comands from
> >>EPP will not exist in CRISP, to give a quick example, and the status
> >>codes would thus not make sense in the CRISP context.  If you
> >>can clarify the proposed requirement here, I'd appreciate it.
> >>			thanks,
> >>				Ted
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I have a requirement I would like to see in your next draft.
> >>>
> >>>Object Terminology, words that talk about domains, contacts etc, and
> >>>status codes will be derived from the EPP Protocol Documents.
> >>>
> >>>thanks,
> >>>
> >>>-rick
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Andrew Newton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm looking to turn around another revision of the requirements draft.
> >>>>Are there any more comments on it?
> >>>>
> >>>>-andy
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>Ietf-not43 mailing list
> >>>>Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> >>>>http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Ietf-not43 mailing list
> >>>Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> >>>http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>