1 / 8

DCHK-05 meets Occam's Razor Marcos Sanz sanz@denic.de 67th IETF, San Diego November 7, 2006

DCHK-05 meets Occam's Razor Marcos Sanz sanz@denic.de 67th IETF, San Diego November 7, 2006. Advancing DCHK. Issues discovered while trying to upgrade our DCHK implementation from -04 to -05: <domainVariant> <status> vs <enhancedStatus> Relevant "domain times" Lameness dateTime i18n

stacy-gay
Download Presentation

DCHK-05 meets Occam's Razor Marcos Sanz sanz@denic.de 67th IETF, San Diego November 7, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DCHK-05 meets Occam's Razor Marcos Sanz sanz@denic.de 67th IETF, San Diego November 7, 2006 CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  2. Advancing DCHK • Issues discovered while trying to upgrade our DCHK implementation from -04 to -05: • <domainVariant> • <status> vs <enhancedStatus> • Relevant "domain times" • Lameness • dateTime i18n • Nits: wording, coherence, examples, references, typos CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  3. Issue 1: <domainVariant> • Assimilated from DREG • maxOccurs="unbounded" is scary in a lightweight service • Potential high amounts of domain variants don't play well with LWZ • Conceptually well placed in DREG(2), but not in an availability service CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  4. Issue 2: <status> vs <enhancedStatus> • Both can appear in a <domain> result object • However, <enhancedStatus> is meant to be a superset of <status> • Further, <enhancedStatus> is more extensible and flexible • So why keeping <status>? Backwards compatibility? CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  5. Issue 3: Relevant "domain times" • Current draft: • initialDelegationDateTime • lastDelegationModificationDateTime • That is a mistake, it should be: • initialDelegationDateTime • createdDateTime • Plan to add expirationDateTime • Plan to add lastDatabaseUpdateDateTime CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  6. Issue 4: Lameness • <enhancedStatus> includes <lame>, which is not an instance of <enhancedStatusType> • It has been assimilated from DREG2 • It is ill-defined in this context: it is an assertion about the lameness of a name server, not of a domain CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  7. Issue 5: dateTime Internationalization • Unnecessary restriction in section "Internationalization Considerations": "The [...] element contains the XML Schema data type 'dateTime'. The contents [...] MUST be specified using the 'Z' indicator for [...] UTC" • No guidelines about that in BCP70 or RFC3076 • Probably only meant to recommend "Z" vs "z" (v RFC3339) CRISP WG 2006/11/7

  8. sanz@denic.de CRISP WG 2006/11/7

More Related