> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 7:27 PM
> To: Gould, James <[email protected]>; Lucas Pardue
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Review of Extensible Provisioning Protocol
> (EPP) Transport over QUIC draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
> links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, at 09:59, Gould, James wrote:
> > JG-"eoq" was changed to include the versioning based on feedback from
> > Lucas, which is set to "eoq/0.1" and will be changed to "eoq/1.0" once
> > the draft passes WGLC.
>
> During QUIC development, we named things "whatever-09" matching the
> draft.  Then we removed the suffix.  ALPN doesn't work with semantic
> versioning, so I'd strongly recommend you not try to embed semantic
> versioning-like strings in it.
>
> > JG-Yes, ordering is a requirement, based on the normative language in
> > the Transport Mapping Considerations section 2.1 of RFC 5730, which
> > states " The transport mapping MUST preserve command order.".
>
> That's a conclusion, not a reason.  Is there a concrete reason?

[SAH] Yes, there is. EPP command processing order is significant. Imagine this 
scenario:

A domain has two associated name servers, A and B.

A client sends an update command that adds name server C.

The client notices that a mistake has been made, so it sends another update 
command that removes the just-added name server C. The net effect of these two 
changes is that the set of name servers remains A and B.

If those two commands aren't processed in that specified order, the "remove 
name server C" command will fail if it gets processed first because C isn't 
part of the existing set. Then the "add name server command" is received and 
processed, and name server C is added to the set. The net effect of these two 
changes is that the set of name servers has been modified from A and B to A, B, 
and C. This isn't what the client expects, and we have a potential operational 
problem.

Scott

Reply via email to