Re: Meeting straw poll

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Ed,


On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Edward Lewis wrote:

> Towards the end of the meeting at the 51st IETF there was a straw poll
> held.  I wanted to allow those not present to voice responses.
>
> First, I asked for a show of hands of implementors.  Not that this is a
> decision point, if you are building an implementation and don't mind doing
> so, please mention this to the chairs - not that we are going to do
> anything with the data.

hmmm... I implement these things.

> (I suppose I should set forth a data collection policy ;) - the data is
> simply to give an indication of the number of efforts.  We won't be
> reselling the contact information. ;))
>
> Second, and this is a decision point.  If members want to delay an answer
> until the minutes are available, this is understandable.
>
> 1) Are you "loyal" to EPP?

loyal is probably the wrong thing to be asking here. I use EPP and I write
applications that use EPP, I also provide services to others that are
required to use EPP by a Registry.

> 2) Are you "loyal" to XRP?

well, I haven't see XRP, and as I understood it XRP is just EPP over a
diferent Transpport; now ask me if I like BEEP ;-)

> 3) Do you want just one to be defined?  IOW, you'll be dealing with so many
> folks, you can't afford to have two dissimilar systems.

the registries will all implement diferent policy and that will require a
registrars to implement this policy; they may have diferent implementations
just to deal with the diferent policy they must implement to deal with the
registyry <-> registrar <-> registrant communications.

> I don't want to know if EPP is better or worse than XRP.  I just want to
> gauge what the group needs to settle upon.

I prefer a single specification of the XML Schemas that we converse about,
I don't care that there are diferent transports. I would encourage the use
of BXXP as I'm sure the IESG would...

> BTW, the largest bloc of hands was for #3 during the meeting.
>
> This poll is not intended to kill off ERP and/or XRP, but rather to
> determine if we need to hammer the two into one - as opposed to being
> parallel.

yes, one specification for the message formats, transactions etc, but lets
keep the transports seporate as they should be.

-rick