RE: host transfers

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>]

At 5:41 AM -0400 8/8/01, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote (quoting me):
>  >Does EPP need a registry-to-registry communication mechanism?
>>If not, does a registry-to-registry communication mechanism need to
>>exist separate from EPP?
>
>As things stand right now, there's nothing that prevents a server from
>switching into client mode to communicate with another server.

Indeed.  Eric's suggestion that we have peer-to-peer communications 
mechanisms allows for (in my mind at least) an even more 
straightforward relationship between registries using EPP, although I 
tend to think the difference is a pretty minor one.

Of course, it's not as simple as just saying 'let registries talk 
using EPP'.  As currently designed, EPP doesn't provide a mechanism 
to authenticate against an object without initiating a transfer. 
Similarly, although the <info> command does provide the needed 
authentication information, registries may not find it desirable to 
make all of the data contained within the <info> response available 
to every other registry.  Similarly, we've discussed in the past the 
need for registries to communicate changes in the names of registered 
name servers to other registries.  EPP doesn't provide a mechanism 
even vaguely like this at present.

I don't think that a more fundamental question has been addressed in 
the discussions thus far:  is EPP the right way for registry-registry 
communications?  I haven't thought about it enough to come to a firm 
conclusion, but my current opinion is that the answer is 'no'.  EPP 
is, and should continue to be, a provisioning protocol, not a 
nameserver update announcement protocol or contact object 
authentication protocol.  Registries need these later types of 
functions from other registries, and I think that they look 
differently enough that it will be difficult to 'fix' EPP to the 
extent that it performs all of these functions well.

Jordyn