On 21.04.22 11:09, Martin Casanova wrote:
Hello
I was stumbling over a rather theoretical problem and I was hoping to
get some feedback from the group.
Given a <domain:create> with a <secDNS:update> instead of a
<secDNS:create> extension what would be the correct answer ?
Precondition: The domain would not yet exist and therefore also no
dnssec data is present at the registry.
The <domain:create> would normally succeed with result code 1000 but the
dnssec part would fail because the verb was <update> instead for <create>.
Whats the correct response?
Create the domain without dnssec and return 1000 seems to be misleading...
An update of a non existing domain would normally lead to "2303 The
object does not exist" but this is not applicable to dnssec is it?
Thanks!
Martin Casanova
Hi,
in our TANGO registry software, we decided to check for unknown or
misplaced extensions. We use a 2103/"Unimplemented extension" code with
a respective message that while the extension is known, it may not be
used in this context. HTH.
Regards,
Klaus
--
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
44227 Dortmund
Geschäftsführer: Registereintrag:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
