Patrick,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 15:09, Gould, James wrote:
> I made the proposal for the optional "standard" attribute with the list
> message
>
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/7E6X5xCdt3DhqL7p7CFupm9bAAY/?qid=e4f712bc8e70e4d0a458971928924651)
> on the thread with Pat Moroney.
Yes, but that was not included in the document and noone replied to your
request for thoughts.
There were plenty of responses on the thread to the request for thoughts. See
Pat Moroney's response that is next in the thread
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ftCDAgAQMyXDPPbvKYN3px5cG_Y).
The fact that there is a need to change the schema at the last time clearly
shows to me that something is half-baked and should not be shipped as is.
Do you support the inclusion of the "standard" attribute and revising the draft
to place it's use and description in the check response only? There is no need
for the client to specify the "standard" attribute in the check command.
—
JG
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 4/13/18, 10:30 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 15:09, Gould, James wrote:
> I made the proposal for the optional "standard" attribute with the list
> message
>
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/7E6X5xCdt3DhqL7p7CFupm9bAAY/?qid=e4f712bc8e70e4d0a458971928924651)
> on the thread with Pat Moroney.
Yes, but that was not included in the document and noone replied to your
request for thoughts.
> The description in the proposal was "
> Add a new optional “standard” boolean attribute to the <fee:command>
> element, with the default value of “0” (or “false”), that indicates
> whether the fees for the command and period matches the “standard”
> classification fees for the command and period.". To address your
> concern, how about revising the description to the following:
>
> ..., an OPTIONAL "standard" attribute with a default value of false (0)
> that indicates whether the fees for the command and period matches the
> "standard" classification fees (see section 3.7), ...
Maybe it is just me, but I still think that for someone new (or even not so
new) this is confusing.
If client stays standard=false does that mean that the reply can not have
class=standard?
On the opposite with standard=true, should? must? the reply have a
class=standard reply?
This all seems under specified to me.
> In hindsight this attribute should have been exclusively included in the
> <fee:command> of the check response (XSD commandDataType instead of base
> commandType) since I believe it's only provided by the server, but that
> would require a schema change. The definition of the attribute may have
> to be moved as well to the check response command description.
The fact that there is a need to change the schema at the last time clearly
shows to me that something is half-baked and should not be shipped as is.
--
Patrick Mevzek
p...@dotandco.com
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
