Subject: [Ietf-not43] status in Domain

From: andy at hxr.us (Andrew Newton)
Date: Thu Nov 13 11:59:21 2003

Expounding upon the <status> element in <domain>,  there are really two 
parts to this issue.

The first part is the noted side effect of the previous decision to make 
the children of the status element an unbounded sequence.  The 
unintended consequnce was that the servers must sort the status elements 
if multiple are applicable.  My suggestion to simply solve this problem 
is to change to an unbounded choice (instead of sequence) and add 
wording that states that no child element may appear twice.

In other words, the only change in the instance XML would be that the 
status indication elements (the children of <status>) would not be 
ordered as they are today, but a single child may not appear more than once.

The second part is really asking the working group if there is a desire 
to extend this change (to 'choice' from 'sequence') to include an 
historical record of the status (naturally, it would be optional for 
deployment).  This would be accomplished by modifying the requirement on 
the child elements so that they may only appear more than once if they 
have an 'appliedDate' attribute containing a date not appearing in any 
other 'appliedDate' attribute on the same type of element.

To illustrate:

The simple change as described in part one:

<status>
   <assignedAndActive .../>
   <registrarLock .../>
</status>

The change as described in part two:

<status>
   <registrarLock appliedDate="11/15/03" .../>
   <assignedAndActive appliedDate="11/10/03" .../>
   <registrarLock appliedDate="11/09/03" .../>
</status>

I am not convinced of the usefulness of this, but I thought I'd throw it 
out to see what other people think.

-andy

---

From: sanz at denic.de (Marcos Sanz/Denic)
Date: Thu Nov 13 16:46:06 2003

> <registrarLock appliedDate="11/09/03" .../>

I don't feel comfortable with this possibility. The service wasn't 
conceived to supply historical information and it may be that we are 
missing the scope if we walk down that way.

Regards,
Marcos

---

From: andy at hxr.us (Andrew Newton)
Date: Thu Nov 13 17:20:50 2003

> missing the scope if we walk down that way.

I should note that this attribute would be optional.  There is no amount 
of specifying that can help if the operator doesn't have the data.

After being slapped about by a couple of individuals here at the IETF 
meeting, I've come to the conclusion that this feature should only be 
included if there is a stronger use-case than "it would be a neat feature."

-andy